David Horowitz: I hope we’re in for a civil, intellectual evening tonight.  But being that this is a university — and I have a lot of experience with universities; I’ve been on about 400 campuses — I’m going to hold my breath on that one.

You can’t get a good education if they’re only telling you half the story.  Everybody understands this.  You know, you watch a court show — if there’s only a prosecutor commenting on the case, and there’s no defense attorney, you know you’re not getting the whole story.  And that’s true with all controversies in human affairs.  And controversies really dominate human affairs.

So I’m sorry to tell you, but if you’re in the liberal arts program at this university, you’re not getting a good education.  I’ve talked to the students here, and they can identify three or four conservatives on the liberal arts faculty, all of whom are in the closet.

(Laughter)

Conservatives actually outnumber so-called liberals — I don’t like to call them liberals, because they’re really leftists — something like 40 to 20.  But, you know, even assuming that there’s a 70-30 split or whatever, the university campuses are practically conservative-free — the faculties.  How does this happen?  Well, it happens because of the largest and most successful blacklist in the history of this country.

McCarthy — I went to Columbia — I was a Marxist, actually, at Columbia, in the McCarthy era.  McCarthy never had the kind of influence to persecute Marxists — certainly not on college campuses — that Marxists, faculty Marxists, at this university and others have today.  McCarthy was outside the university community, and the university community was hostile to McCarthy.

Closely related to this academic principle is the principle of free speech.  And I think one of the problems that we face as a nation is that people take far too for granted the privileges and the rights that they have.  There’s no more important right than the right of free speech.  That doesn’t mean that anybody could stand up right now and start ranting at me.  Free speech means the ability to find a platform in which you can express your ideas.

Every single right you enjoy is dependent on free speech.  Because if you don’t have free speech, if people can be attacked for their ideas and driven out of the public square, then you can’t defend any of your rights.  And you have a one-party system and a one-orthodoxy society.

And I have to tell you that free speech is under attack, systematic attack, on our college campuses by the political Left — by people who call themselves progressives and are always screaming that they’re being — that McCarthyism people are always persecuting them; when, in fact, they are the persecutors and the witch-hunters.

This event is taking place under a cloud of intimidation.  There’s been so much intimidation to prevent — what you’re witnessing right now is me speaking in one room on a university campus of 45,000 people; I don’t know how many rooms.  Yet, groups on this campus — I’ll name them — the Muslim Students Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace — have led a campaign to vilify and demonize not just me — because I come, and I go — but the students who have sponsored me; and to try to prevent them both from holding this evening, and also putting up the Wall of Lies which was on display today on this campus.

Actually, one of the threats was serious enough that the campus security notified my security that there was a threat made against me.  And I’ll probably discuss that later in the evening.  But the fact that I have to come — I don’t go to a campus without a bodyguard.  And the reason is I’ve been physically attacked on several occasions on universities’ campuses, but also that there is such hatred directed at me — I’m misquoted, misrepresented in my quotes — that I have to take seriously the possibility that some deranged individual or group of individuals might want to do me bodily harm.

And this is true of many a conservative speaker.  It’s not true of any leftists.  Not true of any leftists.  This event has been — I’ve been called a racist, an Islamophobe — and demonized in that way.

Just this weekend, you have a loon who I happen to have known when I was a leftist, who –  a Jew who traveled to Lebanon to meet with Hassan Nasrallah, who said that he hopes that all of us Jews gather in Israel so he won’t have to hunt us down globally, and went to kiss his ring.  And this loon just recently has said Barack Obama is a murderer, that Barack Obama murdered Osama bin Laden, and that if anybody should be assassinated, it’s George Bush because he’s a much greater monster than Osama bin Laden.  Of course, I’m speaking of Noam Chomsky, who lost his mind 30 or 40 years ago –

(Laughter)

– but is a great icon among so-called progressives on college campuses.

But the point is nobody attacked — there wasn’t an attempt to intimidate groups from supporting Noam Chomsky.  He was allowed to come and say whatever he had to say.  The fact of the matter is there was only one — there are several campus groups that would support what I have to say tonight.  But only one had the courage to invite me, and to put themselves on the line and in the line of fire, which is College Republicans, and I thank them.

(Applause)

There are other ways that you can express yourself.  One is by putting up the wall, which came under enormous attack.  The wall is 10 — it just refutes 10 lies on which the entire Palestinian case against Israel and the entire case of the Left, including Jewish Voice for Peace, is based.

I condensed the 10 statements into one and published it in the New York Times.  Then I attempted to get the Daily Bruin to buy a page in the Daily Bruin, so that UCLA students might see another side.

Of course, UCLA students don’t tend to see another side because the faculty is all left.  It’s another reason I [could’ve] been invited by a faculty member.  In 400 speeches that I’ve given on university campuses, I’ve been invited three times by faculty.  Three, out of 400.  The Left should be ashamed of itself for doing this.

I understand why the Left does it.  One of the reasons it does it is it really can’t answer the arguments of conservatives.  If they could, they would do it.  I’ll come back here next week and debate anybody — well, not anybody.  I will debate — let’s say, I’ll debate a faculty member who will speak for the Left on the issues I’m speaking on tonight.  Any faculty member.  But that’s not going to happen.  Because the Left cannot meet the arguments.

The effort here to shut down criticism — now, why am I hated by the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justice for Palestine?  I’m hated because I pointed out that the Muslim Students Association was created by the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that supported Hitler, that said, when Israel was created in 1948, that — if the Jews create a state, we will push them into the sea — this is Hassan al-Banna.  It’s the organization in which Osama bin Laden learned the form of Islam that led him to be a terrorist.  It is the organization of the Brotherhood that created Hamas.

During Palestine Awareness Week, on this campus — if you looked on the wall, the so-called Apartheid Wall — this is what I call Hate the Jews week — Palestine Awareness Week and Israel Apartheid Week.  Israel is the only country in the Middle East that’s not an apartheid state.  It’s the only place where if you’re gay, you not only can live in peace and not be afraid of being hanged from cranes — where they do it in Iran — but you actually can hold a Gay Pride parade.  The only place in the Middle East where there’s a Gay Pride parade.  The only place — there are 56, or whatever there are, Muslim countries.  Not one of them could you hold a Gay Pride parade in, without fear of being lynched, and probably being lynched.

Israel is the only one.  And yet, these groups, the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, call Israel an apartheid state.  And the only reason that they can do this is because there’s a great silence on this campus by faculty, who should know better.  Why aren’t there adult voices on this campus saying this is just wrong?  Why aren’t there progressives, faculty members, saying this is just wrong?  Israel apartheid — I mean, first of all, it violates every principle of respect for the other that this university claims to uphold.

(Applause)

Muslims are protected on this campus, blacks are protected on this campus, Hispanics are protected on this campus, but not Jews.  Jews have to walk by the Apartheid Wall accusing other Jews of stealing a whole country and oppressing a people.  And on this wall they have to witness, as a saint — and I’m talking about the wall on the UCLA campus — Sheik Yassin, personally responsible for the murder of 369 innocent Jews, solely because they were Jews.  They were not military officers.  They were Jews.  They were not a threat to anybody; they were just Jews.

Hamas — I will read you — it’s really simple.  And if there is anybody from Jewish Voice for Peace for wants to explain these quotes, go ahead, when the question period comes.  Yusuf al-Qaradawi is the recognized spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.  During the events in Egypt in February, he spoke to a million adoring Muslims in Cairo.  And recall that the Muslim Brotherhood created Hamas, which is an organization adored by the MSA, the S — whatever it is, SJP, and the Jewish Voice for Peace.

Here’s what Qaradawi said — the last punishment of the Jews was carried out by Hitler.  Allah willing, next time, it will be at the hand of the believers — in other words, we Muslims will finish the job.  The founder and head of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, said, “There is no place for you Jews among us and you have no future among the nations of the world.  You are headed to annihilation.”  That’s Jews.

The speaker of the Gaza Parliament, the Gaza Parliament — Hamas, of course, is the government of Gaza — “Be certain that America is on its way to disappear.  Make us victorious over the infidel people.  Allah take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah take hold of the Americans and their allies, Allah count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”  That’s everybody in this room, in case you didn’t get the point.

Hamas is an enemy of all Americans.  Hamas is an enemy of all Jews.  These are — how do you describe these statements?  They’re the statements of Nazis.  So of course, the Muslim Students Association wants to make me take my words and, instead of saying Hamas are Nazis, say all Muslims are Nazis.  That’s the accusation being made against me at UC Santa Barbara, where I’m speaking in two weeks.  And it’s designed just like the attacks on me at this campus, to make people not listen to what I say.

Now, if these quotes are not quotes, you got a legitimate argument against me.  Unfortunately for all the progressives in this room, these are the facts.  And what the Daily Bruin wouldn’t let you read is also a fact.  There is no occupied Palestine.  The claim that the Jews — that Israel occupies Palestine is a lie.

(Applause)

That’s not an opinion; it’s a fact.  Because Israel was created on land that for 400 years — that’s longer than this country has existed — for 400 years previously, was land owned by the Turks.  And the Turks are not Arabs, and they’re certainly not Palestinians.

I got more news for you.  How many people under the age of 25 in this room know that, know what I just said?  That Israel was created — yeah.  Some education you’re all getting.  Land owned by the Turks.  There were other nations created out of the — why were the Turks allowing this to happen, you might ask?  Okay, they chose the wrong side in World War I — they lined up with the Germans, and they lost.  And one of the rules of war is when you lose, the victors get to redraw the map.  That’s just the way it works.

(Applause)

You may argue with that, right or wrong.  But here are the other nations that were created that way out of the Turkish Empire –  Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan.  And Jordan is 70 percent composed of the same people ethnically that live on the West Bank and in Gaza — in other words, Palestinian Arabs.

By the way, nobody even called Arabs Palestinians until 1964 — Israel was created in ’48.  If you said “Palestinian” in 1946, you were referring to Jews.  Because the Arabs –

(Applause)

Because the Arabs see themselves as one nation.  And they all speak the same language, and they basically have the same religion.  There are Christian Arabs, but they’re disappearing.  Why?  Because the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots — Hamas, the Muslims in the Middle East — are slaughtering Christians and driving them out.  Half — and this is true in countries like we liberated — Iraq has lost half its Christian population.  And they’re blowing up churches and killing them.  Infidels.

You can’t say what I’m saying without being attacked as a racist and an Islamophobe, even though everything I’ve said is a fact.  And you could even go to any encyclopedia and look it up.  Simple facts.

The Palestine Mandate — by the way, the word “Palestine” — the word “Palestine” is not an Arabic word.  It’s Latin.  It’s — the Romans gave the region around the Jordan the name “Palestine.”  Why?  Because they conquered the Jews.  The Jews had the very bad idea in 66 A.D., or C.E., to challenge the Roman Empire.  Not a good idea.  And they were crushed and decimated and scattered.

And the Romans, to humiliate them, gave their homeland, which is Judea and Samaria — how many people know where Judea and Samaria is located?  It’s the West Bank.  That is the homeland of the Jews, which they gave up in 1948 just to have slivers of land which were mainly desert, out of the Turkish Empire.  Turkish Empire.  Not Arab.  The Romans gave this the name — it’s Philistine, means Philistines, who were not Arabs.  The Arabs weren’t even in the area in 70 A.D./C.E.  They weren’t even there.

Now, it happens that the Palestine Mandate refers to a geographical region, not an ethnicity, not a people.  It was promised to the Jews as part of the Roman Empire that was going to be of the Turkish Empire that was going to be divided.  In 1922, Churchill signed away 80 percent of the Turkish land promised to the Jews and created the state of Jordan.  And yes, it was part of the British attempt to control the oil in the region.  Seventy percent of Jordan are Arabs from this Palestine region.  Jordan is not ruled by these people.  It’s ruled by a Hashemite minority.

Is there one call on the progressive Left or among the Muslim Students Association to liberate Jordan, for self-determination of Palestinians in Jordan?  No.  Because this is not about a state for Palestinians.  The war is about pushing the Jews into the sea.  Destroying the Jews.  That’s what it’s about.  And people who are supporting this are supporting a genocidal movement.

(Applause)

Now, I’m very confident that even though this is being videotaped, absolutely nothing that I say will be reported accurately on this campus, or on the Internet.  I will give you an example.

You can see me on the Internet.  A film was made by the Palestinian Club.  It was very interesting to me that the Palestinian Club at Brooklyn College — very upset.  They sat through my speech, but they were very upset by it.  But in the end, what did they say?  You want to lynch all Muslims.

You know, I always intersperse in my speech, which — I genuinely believe that Muslims as a whole — 1.5 billion of them — there are good Muslims and bad Muslims.  There are just good Jews and bad Jews.  I think that the religion of Islam has certain problems, like no separation of church and state.  But there are good people and bad people in any religion.

However, at UC Santa Barbara, the finance chair of the Student Activities Board, or whatever it is, who had wanted me to get zero funds to get there — oh, and I should’ve pointed this out — the students asked the Student Activities Board — and in order to have a speaker, it costs money to have this system.  They [need] system security, and generally have to pay honorarium [and trial] for the speaker.

The students here asked the activities board, or the student government, for less money than I get just from my honorarium, just as a normal fee.  They asked for $4,000.  They were given $400.  Why were they given $400, and not zero?  Well, because the law says that you can’t use student fees to advance a political cause, and you can’t deny them for political reasons.  That’s your old First Amendment.

Course, $400 is just as good as $0.  And yes, I am consulting my lawyers on this one.  Unfortunately, conservative students — this is changing, but not fast enough — are relatively passive.  And basically, they say to themselves — when I talked to the students, the same thing happened at UC Santa Barbara — I said, “Why did you ask for so little?”  I mean, they asked for $1,700.  They said, “Because we knew we wouldn’t get it.”  They’re victims.  This has got to change.  For the conservatives here, this mentality has to change.  You ask for the moon, and then you maybe get what you need.

(Applause)

So you have to ask yourself — so, they’re calling me a Nazi.  Oh, and they’re saying I said that all Muslims are Nazis.  Well, you heard me say it here, and what did I say?  I didn’t say all Muslims are Nazis.  I said Hamas is a Nazi party.  I said people who want to exterminate the Jews, and say so, are Nazis!  They’re worse than Nazis!  Because the Nazis, Hitler, hid the Final Solution from the German people.  Because he thought they were too civilized and decent.

Ahmadinejad shouts it from the rooftops — kill the Jews, wipe Americans and Jews off the face of the earth.  And Hamas applauds.  And the Muslim Students Association here, and the Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace praise Hamas as freedom fighters!  Yes, free the earth of Jews!  That’s what they’re about.

So you will see also — you can see on the Internet a film that was made by the Palestine Club at Brooklyn College when I spoke there, and severely edited and cut, so that you see me saying conclusions without ever hearing what I had to say to lead up to the conclusion.

So here’s what I have to say to lead up to one of the conclusions they have there.  You have to ask yourself, how can a progressive, let alone a progressive Jew, who thinks of themselves as championing and defending gays, women — who’s the greatest oppressor of women in the world today?  It’s Islam!  Wake up!  Women are chattel!  They’re slaves!

In Saudi Arabia, if you’re in the elite, and you’re a female, you can’t drive!  You can’t appear on a street as a woman without an escort, or they’ll stone you to death!  If you’re an adolescent girl, 12, 13, you’re going to have your clitoris sliced off without an anesthetic!  How do I know that?  I read it in the New York Times.  Not exactly a conservative paper.

At the women’s studies department here, everywhere — total silence.  I have watched feminists on TV defend — I still can’t believe I saw this.  They had Tariq Ramadan on TV, who is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the Nazi founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who comes off as such a sophisticated intellectual.  A big campaign by the American Association of University Professors to get the ban on him lifted.  The State Department had banned him from coming to this country because he’s involved with terrorism organizations.

But the AAUP and, I’m sure, the enlightened people on the UCLA faculty all petitioned that he should come, and he came.  And he was asked, you know, if he was against stoning, women stoned, because they’re accused of fornicating.  And he said he would like to see a moratorium on stoning.  A moratorium, yeah.

And I saw a feminist.  Her name is Joan Wallach Scott, and she’s a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study — what a disgrace — at Princeton — leading feminist scholar, defending Tariq Ramadan and the moratorium on stoning.  You know, Trotsky once said — he said that Stalinism was a perfect theory for gluing up the brain.  And I will say that about progressivism.

So what I said at Brooklyn College is this.  I said — how is it possible that people who think of themselves as enlightened and progressive, and for equality of women and blacks and so forth — how is it that they can support Hamas?  How is it that they can support Palestinians who are calling for the — push the Jews into the sea and kill them?

And I said, well, one of the reasons is they probably think — because I am so far removed.  I mean, I spent, you know, the first 35 years of my life in the Left.  But I cannot imagine, as a leftist, supporting Hamas.  But here’s what I came up with.  Well, the Israelis are oppressing them, so it kind of drives them out of their mind a little bit.  And we have to, you know, cut them some slack on that.

And you actually hear — you know, you hear leftists defend suicide bombing as a desperation — they have no other choice.  Really?

(Laughter)

What I said was this — people have been oppressed for thousands of years, horribly oppressed.  Enslaved.  Massacred.  And yet, in thousands of years of recorded history, there has never before, never, been a people that has strapped bombs onto its own children, told them to go ahead and blow up other children.  And if you do, you’re going to go to heaven.  And if you’re lucky enough to be male, you’re going to get 72 virgins.  That is sick.  That’s a sick death cult is what –

(Applause)

Well, every one of you who applauded qualifies to be on the Internet, as I am — Horowitz spreading hatred at Brooklyn College.  Because all they show me saying is, “That’s sick, a sick culture,” which it is.

(Laughter)

I think part of the problem here, and part of it certainly on this campus, is that Jews are not standing up for themselves the way they need to.

(Applause)

I offered to debate them ahead of the Rabbi who runs Hillel (inaudible) I was once on a TV show — I was on the panel with him, I actually saw him.  I — of course, he won’t debate me.  As I said, I mean, the Left calls you names because they really can’t handle the argument, let alone the truth.

It’s disgraceful that the Jewish community on this campus, and a progressive community on — well, the progressive community is collusive in this — but that people who think of themselves as enlightened have not said that the Apartheid Wall, the Apartheid Wall, is a violation of the very spirit that the University of California presents to its donors and the parents, [as] standing up for.  What kind of respect is it to call a people, and a nation, which is the most tolerant — along with the United States, the two most tolerant societies on the face of the earth, bar none — can be defamed with the lies on this wall?

Well, by the way, there’s a big map on the wall of occupied Palestine.  And I say this is a Hamas map.  I saw it at UC San Diego, I’ve seen it in books supporting the Gaza Flotilla, which was designed to break a blockade to keep Hamas from getting more weapons.  Shows Palestine in 1946 as Palestine, which is all of Israel.  There was no Palestine in 1946.  There was the Turkish Empire, which was — anyway.

I don’t know — you’ve been a very good audience, so I don’t even know if there are progressives around who will, but I’d like to hear from them, on answering this question.

Now, if I may digress, but [come back] — since the issue is intellectual terrorism.  Now, the threat I got was from the African American Students Union.  Why was I being threatened?  Well, there’s a leaflet distributed here.  And I’m quoted — and this is something I did say — I said, “As a result of America’s efforts to realize the ideals of equality and freedom, blacks in America are now the freest and richest black people anywhere on the face of the earth, including all of the nations that are ruled by blacks.”

And the students — and I forgive students for making these kind of errors; I don’t forgive their professors.  I don’t — the professors, the leftist professors, are totally derelict in their professional responsibility.  Contrary to the propaganda that’s put out by the Left, I have never called for the firing of a single leftist professor.  I defended Ward Churchill, even though I think he should never have been hired.

I’m a defender of academic freedom.  But I will not forgive faculty for not showing students, teaching them how to think.  You’re not in a university to be told what to think.  When your professor gives you a political speech, that professor needs to be disciplined or removed from the classroom.

(Applause)

Let me tell you that students who suffer the most are the liberal students.  Look, the reason is very simple — they’re never challenged.  They don’t learn how to think.  If you’re a conservative student on this or any campus and you open your mouth, you’d better know how to defend yourself.  Because you’re going to be attacked by your professor and most of the class.

When I went to college, and I had professors — and they would defend whatever position was the opposite of what the students were defending, to teach them how to argue.  You’re in a university to learn how to think, how to assemble evidence.  If you read — and compose an argument.  If you read what I actually said — this was part of my campaign 10 years ago, where I first became notorious.  Well, the Left did me a favor — it raised my speaking fee.

(Laughter)

I was against reparations, not because I’m against reparations for slaves but because there are no slaves anymore.  And a campaign for reparations means that you are accusing everybody who is not a descent of slaves of being complicit in slavery and owing you money.  So that meant you had to tell a Hispanic — who’s been in the country for maybe 10 years, who’s trying to learn English and put bread on the table for his children — that he’s responsible for slavery.

Eighty percent of the population of Americans are descended from immigrants who came here after the 1880s, after slavery.  And of the people who have ancestors before that, a lot of them have ancestors who died trying to defeat the South and free blacks from slavery.

So I was against it also because it isolated — Malcolm X made my generation say “black” — African Americans.  Whatever.  These names are, to me, just a way of keeping people walking on eggshells, rather than reality.  It was going to isolate African Americans from all other Americans.  People were going to be resentful.  And if a program was needed for inner-city African Americans who are suffering, who’s going to oppose it if it works?  You know, Bush had the No Child Left Behind program.  I mean, who opposes Head Start, which unfortunately doesn’t work?  But everybody thinks it works, so everybody supports it.

And in the end, I was appealing to black students — because these ads were taken out in college papers — don’t give up your American heritage.  This is to — you know, if you see America as the oppressor nation, you give up some — black people were almost the first people to come here.  So recognize there’s been a great success story.

Now, in this little leaflet, it suggests that I’m claiming that the government is responsible for helping — you know, for all the improvement in the black community.  Look, I’m a conservative.  Government is what created slavery.  It’s not going to create solutions.

(Applause)

It’s just that the founders here created a system of incredible opportunity for people.  And black people, against all odds and with great burdens, have had tremendous achievements.  But the Left wants to hide the achievements.  I got a threat for saying black people in America are successful!

(Laughter)

That don’t make any sense.  I wish there were professors here — some people have a hard time hearing the truth — I wish there were professors here who would do their jobs.

Well, I think I’ve exhausted my subject here.  Like I say, I’m surprised — you’ve been a very civil audience.  I immediately change my view of UCLA students.

(Applause)

And I’m really, really happy to do so.  Because I enjoy a good intellectual discussion.  I don’t enjoy screaming.

All right.  I’m going to open the — thank you very much, and I’ll open the mic for questions.

(Applause)

Unidentified Speaker: All right.  We’re going to have two of our members, one in the front of each passageway here — they’re going to hold the mics.  In the interest of allowing everyone who wants to see a chance to speak, we ask that you keep your questions concise, and that they do in fact end in a question mark.

(Laughter)

Unidentified Speaker: Feel free to come to the mic.  Or –

Unidentified Audience Member: So, I agree with you when you say that free speech is extremely important, even if it’s speech that you don’t agree with, or minority opinion, or something like that.  But I was wondering how you reconcile the fact that you’re opposed to the Israel Apartheid Wall, for example, even being there.  But that’s an expression of free speech that you disagree with.  Your response to the Apartheid Wall is obviously an expression of opinion that you would disagree with and find offensive.  So why are you opposed to their expression of it?

David Horowitz Well, I’m — it’s a good question.  It’s a fair question.

(Applause)

David Horowitz: I was actually — supported — I want to see the principle of respect for the other implemented across the board.  Now, I do think that there’s a conflict between the principles of diversity, in which people are forced to follow what you might call the politically correct line as far as any group is concerned; and freedom of speech.

I think — but we’re in a university.  And a university is like a rare four years that you have to elevate your thought, to really — to learn an elevated discourse.  And I’m not for calling the campus police to tear down the Apartheid Wall, as offensive as it may be.  But I would like to see the university community express the same kind of distaste for the Apartheid Wall as they would for a noose put on a professor’s door, as happened at Columbia, where they [veritably] shut the university down over it.

Now, if you want to defend nooses on professors’ doors — black professors, of course — all right.  I think civility is an important value.  I actually think — I don’t think there’s any way to undo this.  But in 1964, there was a so-called free speech movement on the Berkeley campus.  Because it was organized by leftists, it really wasn’t about free speech.  What it was about was the right to conduct political activities on campus — recruit for political organizations, for example.  The university capitulated and, I think, opened a Pandora’s box that we can’t close.

The university should not be, you know, like — I don’t know — the Hannity & Colmes show.  It’s a university.  So if people feel — if Palestinian students on this campus feel, you know, that the Palestinians are oppressed, there should be a civil way to express that, rather than have a hate-filled wall confronting students when they’re walking through the quad, if you have a quad here.  You do [right there].

So either way — that’s a good question.  But I have not — I didn’t call for the — I’ve just characterized the wall.  What you do about it is another matter.  I do think if faculty and the student government here expressed their displeasure with that kind of expression — look, when I submit an ad to the Daily Bruin, they put me through the wringer.  I’m not allowed to say — the editor started with — my ad was called “The Palestinian Case Against Israel is a Genocidal Lie.”  He said you can’t generalize about Palestinian.  So he says — you got to take that out.

And then, if I use the word “Arab” — it’s like saying — if you say “Americans celebrated” or “were glad to see Osama bin Laden dead” — well, there are a lot of Americans that [weren’t] glad, like Noam Chomsky.  But would you — if you were the editor of — what I’m saying is I’m censored.  And I don’t see the same attitude displayed towards other people.  I mean, I’m willing to dance with the censor.  I changed it.  I said, “The Case Against Israel Is Based on a Genocidal Lie.”  I’m willing to — and I changed “Arab” to “Arab states.”  Israel was not attacked by Arabs; it was attacked by Arab states.  Okay?  So –

Unidentified Audience Member: Can I ask –

David Horowitz: Yes.

Unidentified Audience Member: — give you a quick response to that?  But isn’t “genocidal,” as you said, more so a charged word than “apartheid?”  And –

David Horowitz: Is what?

Unidentified Audience Member: Isn’t “genocidal,” your word (inaudible) charged — isn’t “genocidal” at least as charged a word as “apartheid?”

David Horowitz: Sure.

Unidentified Audience Member: So are you advocating that they censor the other people as much as they censor –

David Horowitz: You know, look, like I said — if there’s a set of rules, I’ll abide by them.  Look, a war is being conducted against Israel on this campus, and against Jews on this campus.  That’s my view of it.  So I’m in the war.  And I will fight fire with fire.  And I wish the Jewish organizations on this campus — which didn’t support my wall and didn’t support my speech here — would do so.  I’d like them to fight.  However, I would really like to see the university enforce rules of civility.

You have this on — you know, if you go on the Web, and if you’re on academic websites, they never allow you to personalize an attack, and so forth and so on — there are rules.  And it changes the nature of the discourse.  If this is the place where people are supposed to learn, the emotional noise is destructive to learning.  I agree with you.  I mean, if that’s your position.  All right.  We can talk later.

Unidentified Speaker: If you have a question, feel free to line up (inaudible) two mics here.

Unidentified Audience Member: Hi, Mr. Horowitz.

David Horowitz: Oh, there you are.

Unidentified Audience Member: [Good].  I’m hoping that you could clarify something because they’re both in the same area.  The majority of the black people and the majority of the Jews in this country seem to be on the left.  Now, you went full-circle, so maybe you can shed some light on –

David Horowitz: I only went half-circle.

Unidentified Audience Member: Well, whatever circle you went — you went from one side to the other.  And so perhaps you can shed some light.  Now, I do know some conservatives.  And it made sense to me that they would be conservative.  But for the most part, they aren’t.

David Horowitz: Those are two different, large questions.  I introduced — had the privilege of introducing Norman Podhoretz at the Skirball Center for his last book, and thanked him for writing it.  Because it’s called “Why Are Jews Liberal?”  And I said, Well, now I don’t have to answer that question anymore.

(Laughter)

I don’t think I can answer that in a short enough time for this evening, particularly since you put two groups in there.

I will say that from my point of view — now, I marched in my first civil rights march in 1948, believe it or not, which is more than probably the parents of the students in this room — longer ago than they were born.  And it’s always been close to my heart, the civil rights struggle.

And I think one of the greatest obstacles for the black community to advance is that it’s a captive of the political Left.  And you can see it in this, and (inaudible) young woman who walked out.  I mean, her mind is closed; she can’t handle — you know, she should’ve stayed and expressed her point of view, and I would’ve answered her.  I think it’s just a terrible burden on the black community that it’s so monolithic.  And I’m hoping that will change.  And I think it will.  I mean, we now — Republicans have elected several black congressmen, including the charismatic Alan West.

(Applause)

[You all] will have an opportunity, if you want to hear Alan West.  Because we’re hosting him on July 19th.  Just follow that on our website, and come and enjoy it.

So, you know, hopefully, that will change.  Perhaps the Jewish community will wake up, now that its back’s to the wall.

J. Mark Campbell: How you doing, David?  My name is J. Mark Campbell.  I’m with the UnitedWest.org, Tom Trento’s group.  And we’re actually streaming live on the Internet to thousands of people, not just in this small room.  And there’s hundreds of Tea Party members — there’s hundreds of Tea Party members actually wanting to know — should they be concerned about the Sharia Islamic issue?  Why, if so?  And why not?

David Horowitz: Yeah, I’d just do that briefly.

It’s a mistake to see terrorism as the only threat.  The Muslim Brotherhood created — or devised a plan for, in their words, destroying the American civilization, which was revealed.  The FBI captured these documents at the Holy Land Foundation Trial.  And what the documents said is that we have to create institutions within American society to carry out this mission.  The terror is an intimidation.  But the real mission is carried out by these organizations.

The first one created — the Muslim Students Association.  The second — and then CAIR, Muslim American Society, Islamic Society of North America.  And then, that’s where the serious threat is.

J. Mark Campbell: So why should the Tea Party groups be concerned with the Sharia Islamic issue?

David Horowitz: What — why?

J. Mark Campbell: Why should the Tea Party groups be concerned with the –

David Horowitz: Well, the first thing is education.  People don’t know.  People don’t know.  I mean, that’s why they hate me.  That’s why all this effort to shut me down or to make people not listen to me is because of that simple fact.  The Muslim Students Association is the Muslim Brotherhood.  And they want to create an Islamic — global Islamic society.  And that means everybody in this room who doesn’t toe the line of whoever the — you know, whoever controls the caliphate is an infidel and is going to be a second-class citizen or a dead one.

J. Mark Campbell: Thank you.

Unidentified Audience Member: I don’t mince any words, so — when the Islamofascist terrorists commit those disgusting acts of murder against my fellow Jews, do they represent — are they giving Islam a bad name?  Or are they representing the real teachings of Mohammad?

David Horowitz: The $64,000 question.  Look –

Unidentified Audience Member: When Mohammad –

David Horowitz: After 9/11 — I’ll answer it as best I can.  The question is, of course, are there any moderate Muslims?  My quick answer is — I want to see them.  I want to see them defending the Jews.  There are Jews –

(Applause)

And there are Jews all over Israel and the United States defending the rights of the Palestinians.  Where are the Palestinians defending the rights of the Jews?

(Applause)

Second, after 9/11, there were surveys done in the Muslim world, by Al Jazeera and other similar institutions, to see how many people thought that this mass murderer who struck a blow at the infidel capital was a hero to them.  And the responses varied between 10 percent and 50 percent.  That’s between 150 million Muslims and 750 million.

So I think that the Muslim world is a problem.  And people who don’t recognize that, or who call somebody like myself an Islamophobe for even raising it, are just in denial.  Just a form of denial.  There were good Germans.  But in the end, they didn’t make a damn’s worth of difference.

Yes?

Unidentified Audience Member: Good evening.  So I noticed that you briefly touched on the statement that you made that was posted on your site that you mentioned earlier.  And then you began to digress and talk about our professors, and how they need to take accountability for what they teach us.

But I wanted to know if you can clarify what you would define as equality and freedom.  Because this is a pretty powerful statement, and you didn’t really explain your definition of what equality is and freedom is.  Because according to me — I work in the black communities all the time.  And I’m not seeing equality and freedom, as far as the resources with schools and jobs in these neighborhoods.  So I could really disagree with this [statement].  So I just wanted to know what you define as equality and freedom.

(Applause)

David Horowitz: Okay.  Can I answer the question?  Do you vote Democrat?

Unidentified Audience Member: Excuse me?

David Horowitz: Do you vote for the Democratic Party?

Unidentified Audience Member: Yes, I do.

David Horowitz: You do?  Are you aware that every major inner city where these problems exist, where the schools are being — are destroying the lives of black children — every single one of them — whether it’s New York, South Central LA, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Harlem, St. Louis — every one is 100 percent controlled by the Democratic Party.  The school boards, the school districts, the city councils — 100 percent controlled by the Democratic Party –

(Applause)

David Horowitz: — and have been –

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible) what you’re defining as equality and freedom, that –

David Horowitz: Well, when you say they’re concerned about deteriorating schools.  And I’m telling you — who’s responsible?  And you vote for them.  So you have to look at your commitments.

I didn’t say that the inner city schools are equal.  I would be the last person to say that.  I’ve talked myself blue in the face, talking — I mean, this is a terrible crime that is being committed against black and Hispanic children.  Because the Democratic Party is running the schools as a jobs program.  It’s the teacher unions who — these teachers — they have contracts where they work six hours a day, they have four months paid vacation.  They get raises, even if they don’t teach the kids.  Who in the — and they have lifetime jobs — who else in our society has that?  That is a crime against black people.  But until black people will look towards the Republican Party and get into it, and fight, they’re never going to get out of this hole.

(Applause)

So, you know, I don’t think people are equal in this society.  I mean, you know, but the question isn’t whether there’s an opportunity to succeed.  You know, there’s never been a Jewish President, but there is a black President.  So you should celebrate the enormous strides that the black community has made, and then look at who’s standing on your necks.  It’s the Democratic Party and the Left, teaching you.

(Applause)

Gary Falster: Good evening.  My name’s [Gary Falster], and I’m a teacher at UC Ervine.

David Horowitz: I know who you are.

(Laughter)

Gary Falster: As you know, UCI has the most aggressive Muslim Student union in the country, and it was the scene of the disruption of the [Orange State Show] last year.  Since then, last year and this year, at Israel Apartheid Week, the community has said enough is enough, and they are fighting back.  We have Israel Apartheid Week going on right now, as we speak.  The community is coming out, in spite of the objections of most of the major Jewish organizations, who want to sweep it under the rug.  And we’re actually — we’re whipping their butts.  I’m telling you the truth, we’re whipping their butts.

(Applause)

Gary Falster: So my question is — I want to ask you about the Olive Tree Initiative, which was originated at UCLA and is now spreading to UCLA, Santa Cruz and the other UC campuses.  For those of you don’t know, this is a program where Jewish, Muslim and Christian students are taken to Israel and the West Bank and exposed to people from both sides of the controversy.  It’s our opinion that this program is badly slanted in favor of the Palestinian narrative.  Many of these people they meet with are in the International Solidarity Movement.  And that one’s just come off [of] 2009 that the group met with a leader of Hamas of the West Bank.  I’d like to get your reaction, your (inaudible) –

David Horowitz: Well, my view of the Orange County Federation, and all the Jewish organizations like Hillel that are involved in this, is that they’re exactly parallel to the [yumerots] in the ‘30s and ‘40s who organized the Jewish community to go its deaths in the death camps.  The Nazis never could’ve killed six million Jews if they didn’t have these Jewish councils organizing the Jews to go peacefully to slaughter.

These people are in serious, serious denial.  And, you know, you have to — I mean, it’s a burden of the Jewish community.  Because for 2,000 years, we had to live in other people’s societies as a — without power, at their mercy.  And so we developed an appeasement mentality.  And that’s what this is is an appeasement mentality.

Jews lived in ghettos for thousands of years.  They were not like the ghettos we refer to; they were places where you couldn’t leave legally.  Anyway, I’m getting — you know, this is a fight that I — that my center has now taken up, and we’re going to carry it on within the Jewish community.  There are members of Jewish organizations here who did not support this speech, not because they disagreed with it but because they were intimidated by the Muslim Students Association and the Students for Justice in Palestine.  You cannot be free unless you’re willing to stand up for yourself.

Go ahead.

Unidentified Speaker: And we have time for two more questions.

David Horowitz: Go ahead.

Unidentified Audience Member: You had addressed that the black community can expand, and it can get better, if we get a Republican in these communities.  But how can we bring this — address this to our people if the Bush Administration will allow Republicans to run our nation, and he couldn’t even [hold our nation now] (inaudible).  So how can we expect our community needs to –

David Horowitz: Sure.

Unidentified Audience Member: — trust the Republican to hold down their own –

David Horowitz: I never in my life have said trust a politician.

Unidentified Audience Member: No, no, (inaudible) trust.  But, wait a minute — I think (inaudible) question –

David Horowitz: I said we need a two-party system.  You need to get the — you need to make the Democrats nervous –

Unidentified Audience Member: That’s not what you said.  You said bring a Republican in — if we get the Democrats out and bring in Republican –

David Horowitz: More [to] the other party.

Unidentified Audience Member: — how can we — how do we [matter]?

David Horowitz: Well, you need two parties.  You need to be — you will gain power if the Democrats think you will actually vote for a Republican.  That’s just the way politics works.  And if you have a figure like Alan West — I mean, if you can find a black Republican or a white Republican who will really fight your fight, then you should support them.

Don’t allow the Democratic Party to own you.  The Democratic Party owns the black community.  And that’s why it can walk all over it.  That’s a problem.  You know, I’m just — actually, look, you’re a student — I’m just trying to get you to think.

Unidentified Audience Member: No, I respect –

David Horowitz: Instead of — you know, I mean, I understand this.  But if you read the whole statement I made, it was that black people should embrace America.  Because you’re like — you came here in –

Unidentified Audience Member: How –

David Horowitz: — 1607, probably.  I don’t know, when the first slaves were brought –

Unidentified Audience Member: How can we — how can we embrace — yes, you’re saying black people should embrace America.  But how can we embrace America when we have black people — most of our black people are struggling?  We can go to a black person’s neighborhood and see the ghetto, and we can go to a white person’s neighborhood and see how (inaudible) is.  But how can we embrace that if we’re struggling?  Like we’re struggling –

David Horowitz: Well –

Unidentified Audience Member: How do we embrace that?  How do we (inaudible)?

David Horowitz: You’re ignoring — most — 49 percent of the black community is in the middle class.  There are lots of rich black Americans, and very powerful black Americans.  There are whole cities run by black people.  If there’s a problem — and I’ll tell you, the Philadelphia schools — they’re terrible.  But they’re run by black people.  So, you know, it’s a more complex problem.  But you begin by identifying as Americans, and not feeling — you know, this — it’s like America’s your enemy.  That’s not helpful to you.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible) is our enemy.

David Horowitz: Anyway –

Unidentified Audience Member: — America’s our enemy, you think that we should embrace America –

Unidentified Speaker: We’re going to do one –

David Horowitz: No, you’re saying America’s your enemy, and that is self-defeating.  Anyway, I’d love to talk longer –

Unidentified Audience Member: — what’s your game plan?  (inaudible) the problem, do you have an action [of] plan, like the –

David Horowitz: Sure.

Unidentified Audience Member: — problem?

David Horowitz: Sure.  The first thing is you should — and we’re going to stop with this, because we have too many — I got to take one more question, and then you can talk to me afterwards.

What you need to do is — the black children and Hispanic children — in this state, it’s mainly Hispanic children, but black children as well — are being oppressed by the teacher unions and the school system.  So you have to take away their power.  And the way to do it would be to create — to voucherize the entire educational system.

(Applause)

Right up, in my view, through the university level.  Instead of the education dollars that the government collects going to the bureaucracies that are not serving the community, they should go directly to the parents.  And the parents will then be able to find the school.  So every parent in the state who has a child should get $15,000 per child or — I think that’s probably the per-pupil cost.  Then you can create schools that would teach your children.

And the only people proposing this that I know of are Republicans.  But Republicans, unfortunately — they’re like Jews in this — they propose these little, modest programs thinking that the teacher unions, [who are] the enemies of the children — that the Democratic Party will accept it if it’s reasonable and small.  It needs to be big.  Because it needs to wake up black parents, Hispanic parents, the kids — the parents of the kids in these schools.

You know, I tried to actually persuade Bush to do $100 billion program like this, and it fell on deaf ears.  Because that’s — you Republicans are a very reasonable lot.

Anyway, I’d love to talk to you more.  You know, you can always e-mail me.  I’ll give you my e-mail afterwards.  But you need to read — do you know the name Thomas Sowell?

(Applause)

David Horowitz: No.  Yeah, yeah, yeah — I’m asking the students because I know who their teachers are.  Thomas Sowell is a very great and famous black economist, who happens to be a conservative.  He’s at the Hoover Institution.  If you read his books, or Walter Williams’ books, you would understand more the root out of this problem, the path out of it.

But never trust an individual politician, please.  You got to be there and keep them honest.

Yeah, one more.  This has gone on –

Unidentified Audience Member: Thank you for coming tonight.

My question — in Andrew Breitbart’s new book, he talked about Clarence Thomas, or the Clarence Thomas hearings, and how it was a major event for his transition from the Left.  And I was wondering if you had a similar transition from the progressive movement.  And how do we get people to hear both sides, and –

David Horowitz: Too many questions.  I’ll answer just in a nutshell.

I was a — when I was a radical, I got involved, through a Hollywood producer, with the Black Panther Party.  I raised a great amount of money — it was $150,000 in those days, but today it would be many times that — and bought a church to use as the Black Panthers’ school.  And what I didn’t realize was that the Black Panther Party was a criminal street gang with progressive covering.  And they murdered the woman that I recruited to keep the books of the school.  And that woke me up, really stopped me from going on in my — you know, it knocked me off the white horse I was on.

Anyway, that was my turning point.  I wrote a book, “Radical Son,” for anybody interested, about this.

Anyway, you can — I mean, it’s a real surprise to me.  When I walked in here, I thought, we’re going to have a really tough evening.  Shows you that appearances can be deceptive.  You know, or maybe I’m just paranoid from all of the attacks on my speech.  You know, when you arrive, and you know you’ve been attacked for weeks, and there are threats, it affects –

Unidentified Speaker: Down with Horowitz.

(Laughter)

David Horowitz: Thank you, David.

Anyway, thank you all for coming.  You’ve been great.

(Applause)

Jewish Student Sues UC Berkeley over Muslim Assault

By Maayana Miskin–Israelnationalnews.com

A Jewish student at the University of California at Berkeley who was attacked by a Muslim student last year has filed suit against UC Berkeley for failing to provide a safe atmosphere. In her suit, 21-year-old Jessica Felber alleges that UC Berkeley did not effectively deal with harassment and intimidation by Muslim and pro-Arab student groups, leading to “a dangerous and threatening environment.”

Felber was attacked by Husam Zakharia, leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine SJP group, during a rally. At the time, she was holding a sign that said “Israel Wants Peace.

”

via Arutz Sheva – IsraelNationalNews.com.

If progressives wonder why they began to falter at the end of the 20th century, I can tell them.

Analogies.

The great battles for black, workers’, and female rights having been (mostly) won. So-called “liberals” started calling themselves “progressives” at the precise moment they began, perversely, living in (and off) the past.

As the stakes got smaller — a side effect of the shift in the Left’s locus from the streets and the factory to the academy — the rhetoric became more comically overblown.

So a girl demanding admittance to an all-male military school was held up as the Rosa Parks of the Citadel. (After dragging the school through an expensive lawsuit, and winning, the stupid chick dropped out her first week).

Some New York transvestites at a Mafia-run bar got maudlin drunk after Judy Garland died then attacked some cops — and “Stonewall” was held up as synonymous with “Selma.” Baby seals were just like Bangladesh babies, with snow.

And when faced with opposition, progressives bear down and chant the names of the long dead — “Kennedy” and “King” and “McCarthy” and “Murrow” — like Macbeth’s witches.  They have to, because — if they’re presented to the general public without vintage accessories possessed of good provenance — the latest leftist causes are laughably trivial, less to do with group “rights” or even “needs” than petulant, idiosyncratic, individual “wants” and “demands.”

Whereas libertarians and conservatives accept the obvious — “A = A” — progressives insist that nothing is what it is. Word definitons are fluid. Everything is a conspiracy. Each new (idiotic) cause is the fun house mirror image of a noble, long ago moment of glory. If the left didn’t craft such analogies, the average person would never support them. But terrified of ending up on the wrong side of history, ordinary folks hesitate to laugh at the notion that two gay men picking on a Christian bed and breakfast owner are the moral equivalent of the Freedom (bareback?) Riders.

Give progressives credit: they DO claim to love recycling…

And recycling is what passes for the art of film making today. It’s bad enough that Hollywood seems incapable of producing movies that aren’t remakes, sequels and barely disguised rip offs. Why should documentaries be immune to taking the easy way out?

Later this year, Evocateur will debut, telling the story of the late Morton Downey Jr.

Aaron Barnhart of TV Barn and the Kansas City Star writes:

When I was in college in Chicago, I would listen to Downey on WMAQ, the AM country station that had recently flipped to talk and had hired the onetime singer-songwriter, then in his 50s, to stir things up. Downey had arrived by way of Sacramento, his latest stop in a long and bumpy broadcast career. He’d been fired from KFBK in 1983 for referring to a Sacramento city councilman as a “Chinaman.”

As I recall, he didn’t meet with much success at MAQ. But like Rush Limbaugh — who was hired as his replacement in Sacramento — the chain-smoking, sneering Downey just needed the right conditions in order to launch into the media stratosphere.

That turned out to be “The Morton Downey Jr. Show,” taped in Seacaucus, N.J., and a sensation in the late 1980s. Why then? Why him? Why the conditions just ripe for a Morton Downey to invade the media space with his yelling, his insults, his insane studio audience and over-the-top daily confrontations?

NewsReal readers can guess what’s coming next even before the trailer for Evocateur spells it out (with help from a talking head I believe to be Stanley Crouch):

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the new Morton Downey Jrs. A brief montage of supposed latter-day Downeys displays pictures of Rush and Beck, but not Keith Olbermann, Rosie O’Donnell or Ed Schultz — or one-time trash TV host Geraldo Rivera.

Oddly enough.

Next: Projecting phoniness…

Dr. Jamie Glazov’s illuminating book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror, has received a rave review from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Glazov has recently followed up United in Hate with the equally important Showdown With Evil: Our Struggle Against Tyranny and Terror, which features analysis from some of the greatest thinkers of our time.

From the JAPS:

“Everything that exists deserves to perish.”
–Karl Marx

[T]he more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot.”
–German playwright Bertolt Brecht

“In the years of independence, the Arabs have so far made no inventions or discoveries in the sciences or the arts.”
–British author David Pryce-Jones

In United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, Dr. Jamie Glazov, managing editor of Frontpage Magazine, exposes the shocking history of the American Left and its support of a succession of totalitarian killing machines, such as Stalin’s Russia, Castro’s Cuba, North Vietnam, Mao’s China, Sandinista Nicaragua, and now, the vicious ideology of Islamic extremists. The Left’s utopian paradises repeatedly result in mass death and suicide instead of the human equality and “social justice” promised. The resulting death count to date is well over 200 million humans and climbing.

Prominent intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw, Upton Sinclair, H.G. Wells, Bertolt Brecht, and Susan Sontag all applauded the mass murderers involved, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, and excused their atrocities while blaming America for the crimes, states Glazov. Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty, the New York Times’ man in Moscow during the 1920s and early ’30s, covered the Ukrainian famine. While Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians to death, Duranty lied to America and praised the Soviet dictator.

In the 1960s, a new generation of believers formed the “New Left” — with the same ideas and goals to develop true socialism that were used in the Soviet terror. As Glazov notes, this was the most privileged generation in human history, wanting for nothing. The new believers hated capitalism not because it failed, but because it worked. The father of the New Left, Herbert Marcuse, used the term “repressive tolerance” to describe the way capitalism supposedly enslaved people by making them happy and free. Leftist guru Noam Chomsky agreed.

To read more, click here.

Nancy Pelosi is trying to get some help on becoming more likable:

“Lawmakers say she is consulting marketing experts about building a stronger brand. The most prominent of her new whisperers is Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director whose films have been works of branding genius. Lawmakers said Spielberg has not reported to Pelosi with a recommendation.”

I’m not sure why it takes a “marketing expert” to tell her the obvious: Stop being  such a dishonest political hack.

And stop making ridiculous statements… People tend to frown on that.

The following are ten outrageous statements made by Pelosi in just the few years. She should avoid making statements like these in the future:

1.“The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”

Nice. The only problem is the Old Testament contains no such quote.

2. “This initiative is funded by the high end – we call it Astroturf It’s not really a grassroots movement.”

Just gut-wrenching hypocrisy -Astroturf is all the Dem Socialists know, so naturally she accuses her political opposition of what her side does in spades.

3. “Every week we don’t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”

Yeah, she actually said that.

4. I’m confident…I’m hopeful  that we’ll have a (health care) bill as a Christmas present for the American people.

This, after polls were showing a majority of the American people were against it, after several weeks of bruising (for Dems) town hall meetings in which citizens voiced their opposition to the bill, and after hundreds of thousands showed up in Washington to protest the bill…

5.. You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.

At the time, 61% of the American people were saying it was time for Congress to scrap ObamaCare.

6.“Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program”

Imagine how many jobs we could create if everyone quit their jobs!    Wait…..

7. “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.”

Needless to say, natural gas is a fossil fuel.

8. “I think it’s unAmerican.” (to enforce immigration law).

She said that to a Hispanic audience, and refused to clarify the statement when Fox News called her office later on for comment.

9. Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost.

This was in response to a question from George Stephanopoulos about the wisdom of spending millions of dollars on birth control funding in the stimulus package.

10. “We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what is in it”.

This stunning demonstration of political condescension was meant to calm the fears of the public – trust them – they know what’s good for us…

To quote Doug Powers:

“In the real world, demonstrating lunacy of this magnitude is known as a “cry for help” and an intervention involving large nets, straight-jackets and electric shock therapy is in order. But not in Washington, DC, where free-range crazies are allowed to pick pockets, loot futures, and all too often get re-elected”.

Tragically, she was re-elected, and House Dems voted to keep her as their leader.

Yep.

Seems to me they all could use some help “improving their brands”. What that generally means for Dem Socialists is, “better messaging”…or in common parlance, “better lies”. Which brings us back to what I said at the beginning about dishonest political hacks. I guess Democrats call on  marketing experts to help them with their lies.

I think it’s a lost cause, myself.

RELATED:

Another lost cause:

Dems hope to  make ObamaCare more popular by “rebranding” it.

I did not know that supporters of ObamaCare, call it  “pee-pack-uh”,  an acronym for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Others call it the Affordable Care Act or just health-care reform.

But those less-than-inspiring monikers aren’t much help to Democrats trying to convince the public that “Obamacare” – the Republicans’ pejorative name for the law – is worth keeping, said Robert J. Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Democratic pollsters concede that there is a problem.

“We do need a common narrative that includes a name,” said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners. “When Obama’s job performance improves, it will be fine to call it Obamacare. Now, it is polarizing.”

Yeah, that’s right, Dems. Change the name. Then people will love it.

That’s how stupid they think we are.

American born terrorists are trying to kill us. Since 9/11, nearly fifty terrorist plots, germinated in the United States and aspiring to inflict substantial casualties on the American public, have been uncovered in various stages of development.

In an effort to address this emerging threat, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), incoming chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has indicated that he intends to hold hearings on the issues of radicalization, the underlying factors affecting its proliferation, and how best our society can collectively address this phenomenon.

Not surprising, several organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have come out against such an inquiry. A spokesman for CAIR, Ibrahim Hooper, went so far as to suggest that Rep. King’s proposed hearings were tantamount to a “witch hunt,” stating,

“We’re concerned that it’ll become a McCarthy-type hearing.”

Pretending that the threat of homegrown radicalization, particularly in the Muslim community, does not exist does a disservice to both public safety as well as Muslims themselves, as it is their communities that are most threatened by the scourge of radicalization.

In a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released in September, forty homegrown terror plots dated between September 2001 and September 2010 were analyzed. A distinct uptick in the prevalence of domestic radicalization and homegrown terror can be seen in the 18 months directly preceding the release of the report.

Since the CRS report was originally released, it has been updated to include several additional terror plots that have been thwarted by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Recent attempts at domestic terror have included a plot to attack the Washington D.C. Metro system as well as a failed attempt to detonate a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.

All of this data point to ominous signs for the continued security of the American homeland and underscore a fundamental reality: domestic radicalization is a very real, and increasingly prevalent menace.

Having public hearings to better understand and conceptualize the long-standing, but emergent threat of homegrown radicalization should be welcomed. Rather than using the red herring of “McCarthy-ism,” and eschewing the legitimacy of Rep. King’s inquiry, organizations dedicated to the advancement of the Muslim community should recognize the dangers inherent in an ideological battle that pits radicalized indoctrinators of hate against moderate, mainstream American Muslims.

Every American has a stake in the struggle against radicalization and a united, well-informed public stands the best chance of preventing the germ of radicalization from manifesting into a future act of terror. Rep. King’s proposed hearings present a valuable opportunity to enhance this dialogue; an opportunity that organizations such as CAIR should welcome.

Scott Erickson has worked in the field of law enforcement for the past decade and holds both his B.S. and M.S. in Criminal Justice Studies. He is a contributor to The Daily Caller and writes on myriad political, national security, and counterterrorism issues. His blog can be found at www.scottgerickson.com

I, like the vast majority of people in the world, believe in prayer.  Prayer is a great gift given to us to communicate with God.  However, I am not a fan of prayer ever being used as a tool of politics.  It is especially wrong to use prayer as weapon of intimidation.  Sadly a large group of Muslims in Paris, France think prayer should be used  for just that purpose.

In the the Paris district of Barbès (Paris, 18th arrondissement) a large group of Muslims take over the streets by blocking them off to cars and pedestrians every Friday.  The Islamists use their own guards and people to set up prayer rugs all over the streets of Myrha, Leon Polonceau, Fishmongers, and the Boulevard Barbès.  It’s been going on for years and there appears to be no signs of it stopping.

The Muslims come from all over Paris to pray as a protest and act of intimidation.  They want the government to build them a Mosque there (though they are welcome to buy and build their own), and until they get it they will take over the streets every Friday for a couple of hours.  Of course, these activities are illegal but the Parisian government doesn’t want to offend anyone by enforcing the law.

Meanwhile, local residents have complained they have been blocked from leaving or entering their homes during those prayer times.  Also, some women have reported they have been verbally attacked for not wearing head coverings.

When the street make-shift mosque is going on, Imams can be heard all around from loudspeakers. The whole scene is basically a community take over and an act of Jihad.  No major violence has broken out, but it is clear that the potential is there every week.

Some of the residents in the area have written directly to President Sarkozy requesting that he enforce the laws against this behavior.

Mr President

This is an appeal for help from the citizens of the 18th arrondissement. For several years now, certain of our streets have been occupied by fundamentalists…The pavements for hundreds of metres are taken over, putting pedestrians in grave danger as they are obliged to walk in the street to get past the people “praying.”

Entire streets are roped off with cars and security barriers and no entry signs, preventing the inhabitants of the area from going out or returning to their homes, the shopkeepers from working, ordinary citizens from circulating normally.

Every protest or even a simple attempt to penetrate into the zones occupied by these fundamentalists risks being met by insults, threats and aggression and for some time now no one dares to protest, such is the fear installed in our area…

Mr. Delanöe, the Mayor of Paris, knows perfectly about our situation, as does Mr. Vaillant Mayor of the 18ème et Mr. Gaudin Préfet de Police. All of them have abandoned our streets to Islamic fundamentalists, they have abandoned their citizens who can no longer walk around their city because certain areas are out of bounds to non-muslims during prayer times…

Mr. President. Do not abandon us also. Stop this occupation of our streets by fundamentalists.

The inhabitants of the 18ème area of Paris.

We are not able to sign this document for fear of our lives and those of our families.

Muslims should be allowed to pray just like Christians and other religions.  But prayer should never be used to prove a point, and especially not be a tool to cause consternation in others.  Prayer is about talking to God in fear, not causing others to fear you.  Jesus was clear on what prayer should look in the gospel of Matthew.

5 ”And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Matthew 6:5-6

The French government should put a stop to letting religious extremists take over streets and neighborhoods.  And Americans should realize that similar acts could take place in some of our streets in the not-so-distant future.

Government should never tell someone they cannot pray, but neither should the government allow a supposed prayer service be used to harm others.

______________________________

Paul Cooper is a husband and father above all else.  With a wife and 2 daughters he could use a dog, but sadly he only owns a cat – a female cat no less.  Paul is also a pastor, blogger, and business owner.  Find him on Twitter.

Too often people hit by tragedy are remembered more for what was done to them instead of what they’ve done.  The tribulations of life often shape us, but they are never the full picture of who we are.  There is no doubt Elizabeth Edwards, who passed away yesterday after her battle with cancer, was a person hit hard in life multiple times and in a variety of ways.  But Edwards has a much larger legacy in shaping our country the last few years than most realize.  Obviously those on the Right don’t like the results, but she deserves her due for accomplishing so much of what she devoted her life to.

Every article on Edwards passing has given ample focus to the trials the wife of Senator John Edwards faced.  Earlier in life her 16-year-old son died in a car accident.  She helped her husband fight losing battles for both the Vice Presidency and the Presidency.  Later in life she beat breast cancer only to have it come back in an unbeatable form.  And in the midst of her husband losing his second bid for president, and finding out she had incurable cancer, the whole world found out that her husband had an affair and a child from that scandalous relationship.

Obviously all those events loomed large in Mrs. Edwards life, but her politically active accomplishments are mostly unheralded or even unrealized.  I say with absolute certainty that Elizabeth Edwards was one of the main drives behind our government’s push toward a more so-called progressive agenda.  The workings of Obama-Pelosi-Reid found much of its footing because of previous foot work done by Edwards.

John Edwards had no interest in politics leading up to his Senate bid in 1998.  In fact, he often didn’t vote in elections.  Elizabeth was the one that not only pointed him that way, but she was one of his key advisers in that election – along with his presidential runs in 2004 and 2008.  She helped shape Edwards campaign and views.

In both Presidential Democrat Primaries John Edwards was the one known for pulling others to the Left.  He was often the only major candidate pushing for universal healthcare and talking of two Americas, the haves and the have nots.  After Bill Clinton’s success most Dems wanted to come off as moderate, but John Edwards pushed them all more and more towards so-called liberal issues.  He pushed them, but it was Elizabeth who was pushing John.

Elizabeth was always more on the Left than her husband John.  She was for gay marriage when he was against it.  She was against the Iraq War before he was speaking out against it.  She promoted universal healthcare before he considered it.  Elizabeth Edwards nudged her husband to the left and he in turn nudged his party to the left.  It suddenly became okay to be called progressive and liberal.  Obama would later find a smoother path toward leftward policies thanks to Elizabeth Edwards.

Barack Obama and others on the Left recognized Elizabeth Edwards’ ability to help drive progressive policies.  In June 2008 she officially became an adviser to presidential candidate Obama on healthcare issues.  And she would also become a senior fellow in the leftist think tank, Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress has been described as “the most influential organization advising” the Obama administration.  It is funded by George Soros and Bloomberg news called it the ” intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.”  Elizabeth Edwards was not only a senior fellow in the organization but also testified to congress about healthcare on their behalf.

Think of that.  Obama’s biggest progressive victory is Obamacare.  It was helped shaped by Edwards and she is the one that promoted it effectively to congress.

Elizabeth Edwards’ views are opposite of mine and other conservatives in so many ways, but she deserves credit for her legacy even if we don’t politically like it.  She was clearly a resilient and effective woman of strength.  And I think it’s okay to completely disagree with her positions but still respect the woman for fighting her fight and finishing her race.

______________________________

Paul Cooper is a husband and father above all else.  With a wife and 2 daughters he could use a dog, but sadly he only owns a cat – a female cat no less.  Paul is also a pastor, blogger, and business owner.  Find him on Twitter.

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; Upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shone. — Isaiah 9:1

This verse from Scripture will be read at Midnight Mass, December 25, in Catholic churches across America. For radicals in the pews, however, the light focused on will be the light coming from their smartphone screens as they communicate with each other and report to Aniello Alioto, political director of the George Soros-funded Progress Now, any “hostile activity” in the form of priests explaining Catholic teaching on the family and marriage.

George Soros’ Counterfeit Catholicism is decidedly no longer limited to public political discourse. Now reaching directly into Catholic parishes, the radical subversion of the Catholic Church holds nothing sacred. Not even Christmas Mass.
Thomas Peters of Catholic Vote first reported about a letter sent by Aniello Alioto to members of Catholics for Equality, a group that seeks to cause division in the Catholic Church here in America on issues related to  homosexuality and marriage.

Let’s be clear what Alioto is saying: their organization plans to encourage its membership during Christmas to bring their phones to Church and to “report” from the pew whenever a priest or bishop dares to preach about the family or issues related to marriage, and to conduct fundraising in our sacred spaces.

It’s hard to imagine a more intrusive attempt to undermine the freedom of Catholic parishes and pastors to preach what the Church teaches to Catholics who are already constantly maligned outside of Mass about their views. Catholics for Equality has decided to take their fight against the Church into the very heart of our sacred worship spaces.

Besides announcing new smartphone apps designed to help with this subversion, Alioto’s letter claims that activists “don’t need the consent of our hierarchy” to behave in this manner at Mass. This could not be further from the truth. According to Canon Law, specifically Canon 528, Section 2, any priest, “under the authority of the diocesan Bishop” is within his rights to remove from the church building anyone who causes distraction from the “devout celebration of the sacraments.”

The parish priest is to take care that the blessed Eucharist is the centre of the parish assembly of the faithful. He is to strive to ensure that the faithful are nourished by the devout celebration of the sacraments, and in particular that they frequently approach the sacraments of the blessed Eucharist and penance. He is to strive to lead them to prayer, including prayer in their families, and to take a live and active part in the sacred liturgy. Under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, the parish priest must direct this liturgy in his own parish, and he is bound to be on guard against abuses.

Anyone engaged in activity that takes the focus away from the “devout celebration of the sacraments” may be removed from the church. Catholic priests and bishops would do well to be on guard for the use of cell phones during Mass, but particularly during Christmas Masses in light of this news.

If you are Catholic, please consider forwarding this article to your priest and to your bishop so that they can be aware of the danger.

~~~

Follow Lisa Graas on Twitter and visit her blog at LisaGraas.com

As America has become polarized, it’s clear that a strong, unifying, Reagan-like leader is needed to pull us all back together. So it is also in America’s Roman Catholic Church as voices rise up on the Left and the Right in frustration while silent bishops seem content with blindly pretending that “things are going well.”

Now, a bishop from the Left, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, wishes to quell the proverbial angry mob, presumably those of us on the Right, with a somber statement accusing the frustrated among us of sin for our anger about what he deems to be lies. Here is my reply to His Excellency.

Your Excellency,

In reply to your latest statement, Christian Discourse: Both Truth and Love, I write.

Respect for the truth requires speaking the truth even when those truths may be difficult for others to hear. The bond of trust between many (not all) of our bishops and the laity has indeed been severed, not by the people, but by the bishops themselves.

First, silence regarding some cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests brought understandable outrage, primarily from the Left. Now, it is with silence regarding the political activism being funded through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which is of the Alinsky model, Marxist in nature. No one wants to hear that word “Marxist” but truth is truth.

Many bishops have failed by alienating, through silence, Catholics on both the Left and the Right. Though I do not at all agree with many on the Left who sometimes appear to have no greater goal than to undermine the authority of the bishops, particularly misusing sexual abuse cases to do so, I do not begrudge them their right to speak out for what they sincerely believe is “the good of the Church.” I would never dare to accuse them of lacking charity in their hearts but certainly of being grossly misinformed. I would argue that even if your statement is intended for them alone, it is misguided.

America has spoken.

The lame duck session of Congress found its wings, if only for a few minutes yesterday.  Fireworks sparked when the Democrats tried to push a controversial Veteran’s bill on the House floor with few present.  The Dems handling of the bill led to an entertaining exchange between a passionate Republican Congressman from Indiana and a robotic like Democrat Congresswoman from California.  CSPAN picked it up and the video has gone viral the last two days.

The Veteran’s bill that the Left tried to force through the House would likely allow abortions to be provided on military bases.  Of course, that would mean our tax dollars would be helping to provide abortions, which is not a popular idea.  Retiring Republican Congressman Steve Buyer is a ranking member of Congress and wanted to make sure the bill was handled properly.  

Buyer requested five minutes to talk about the bill and acting Speaker Laura Richardson would not allow it.  Every time Buyer made a request to speak, Richardson would get fed what to say by some non-elected staffers.  It was quite a scene that ended with Buyer pacing back and forth where he knew the fixed CSPAN cameras could see him.

RICHARDSON:  For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

BUYER:  I ask unanimous consent to address the House for five minutes. Hearing no objection –

RICHARDSON:  Five-minute special orders are not being recognized at this time.

BUYER:  I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute.  Hearing no objection –

RICHARDSON:  Not being entertained at this time.

BUYER:  Oh, so as a sitting member of the House the Speaker chooses not to recognize another sitting member, is this correct?

RICHARDSON:  Recognition is within the discretion of the Speaker.

BUYER:  So the discretion of the Speaker here is not to recognize a ranking Republican member on a bill that is about to be heard that has never gone through the process of the committee. I ask to be recognized.

RICHARDSON:  The House is proceeding with motions to suspend the rules.

BUYER:  And if the chairman is not here to present the bill, shouldn’t we go to the next bill and would therefore withdraw this bill?

RICHARDSON:  The gentleman has not been recognized.

BUYER:  I ask to be recognized. I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute. I don’t even see anyone here on the floor to object, Madam Speaker, it’s within your discretion.  There is no one here to object. This is why the American people have thrown you out of power.

Buyer spoke on behalf of all Americans with that last line.  America is fed up with politics as usual, and thankfully a retiring Congressman felt the freedom to speak without caring about politics.  The frustrated public servant finally got to speak one minute, and he used it to express even more frustration with how the Dems are handling things.

On Tuesday Buyer did an interview with Sean Hannity and said he felt he could have been more civil, but he was still obviously frustrated with the way Democrats in the House are handling their last grasp of power.  Hannity rightly told Buyer he should not apologize for his passion.  Buyer responded:

Congress has become a dark, mismanaged and disorganized institution, and undemocratic.  We all try to control ourselves. I am pugnacious.  But I also believe we have to be very civil. I was dumbfounded that I would not have been recognized to speak.

With Republicans taking control of the House in 2011 things will change some.  But hopefully we’ll have some Senators with guts like Buyer ready to take on Democratic leadership between now and 2012.  Americans have had enough and are ready to be heard.

Thank you Representative Buyer.

Salvation Army thrift store.

As a rule, whenever things look bad for the retail industry overall, things tend to perk up for less expensive venues like secondhand stores and thrift stores. That is the situation now, according to Consumer Reports:

[S]econdhand stores are getting in on the Black Friday selling-spree this year. Due to the Recession and general belt-tightening, thrift stores are an attractive option for shoppers looking to score an affordable gift. The National Association of Resale & Thrift Shops says that while retail sales have been down, resale is up.

That is just one sign of the weakened condition of our economy. A more serious  symptom is the decreasing value of the dollar. China and Russia have abandoned the buck, as reported in this article (“China, Russia quit dollar,” by Su Qiang and Li Xiaokun, Asia News Network article, Nov 24, 2010) :

China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday.

The dollar is being abandoned like a sinking ship – the latest indication that we’re on the skids. In addition there are problems like unemployment, gigantic deficits both in trade and the budget, loss of manufacturing jobs, and crushing debt.

What the well-dressed middle-class American is wearing.

We’re broke, and Obama and his advisors are flailing around in search of a solution, or even a correct diagnosis. Various villains have been identified as the root of the problem — China’s manipulation of its currency, George Bush’s failure to regulate businesses, predatory housing loans made by greedy banks, etc. And various solutions have been tried: flushing away massive sums of “stimulus” money, bailing out “too-big-to-fail” companies, printing money to “monetize the debt.”  None have helped, and none will solve the problem.

Flailing around.

Our leaders won’t solve our economic crisis, because they will never abandon their economic dogma about off-shoring, or rather, about “protectionism.” They insist we must passively accept the loss of our manufacturing sector – a loss which has nearly destroyed our economy. The sound of our economy disintegrating is that same “giant sucking sound” Ross Perot predicted years ago.

But all the “experts” keep fighting the last war, analyzing the situation through the prism of times past, and clinging to the conventional theoretical framework. In one opinion piece after another, they beat up on “protectionism,” give the Smoot-Hawley Tariff a sound drubbing, and crush the Great Depression. They have constructed a Maginot Line of rhetoric to defend against “protectionism,” while disinvestment, or the loss of productive capital, is destroying our economy.

Vincent Looks Down on you Evil Parents

If you would like to believe that some people in Hollywood are sane then don’t look to the cast of Mad Men.  The popular cable show has at least one guy who basically thinks having children is irresponsible and hurts the environment.  He hopes the rest of us will learn to live as responsibly as him.

Mad Men’s Vincent Kartheiser did an interview this week with MSNBC’s Tamron Hall to talk about how to go green.  The progressive network thought the actor was qualified to interview, because he’s insanely green in his personal life.  The guy has no car, thinks meat is evil, and in fact, has no toilet.  Kartheiser told a UK magazine earlier this year:

“I don’t have a toilet at the moment.  My house is just a wooden box. I mean I am planning to get a toilet at some point. But for now I have to go to the neighbours. I threw it all out.”

If not having a place to relieve yourselves isn’t enough, he told MSNBC that it’s truly green to not have children.

Hall: Did you move forward at that point and look for other ways, if you will, to go green and to live what we should all be doing – living more responsibly?

Kartheiser: I’ve been a vegetarian for four years and I have chosen not to have children, which are both green choices in my life.

Well how noble of you Vince.  To you, all of us should live more responsibly by not having those little evil environmental killers – ya know, kids.  In fact, Kartheiser eased our minds that he isn’t doing anything “miraculous” that the rest of “the masses” couldn’t do.

The new symbol of the Democrat Party?

When an organization gets destroyed by the opposition it makes sense to ask for new leadership.  And that may just be what Democrats are starting to do with President Obama.  The whooping the Left took in early November was a massive shift in power and a declaration that the polices of Obama are a disaster.   Opportunistic Dems that care more about power over principles have woken up to the mistake that was “Yes we can.”  They are now screaming, “I wish we wouldn’t have.”

Obviously a so-called liberal cannot just come out and say let’s flush our beliefs so we can keep our jobs (though Bill Clinton was able to pull it off after the 1994 elections).  Democrats would look bad if they turned their back on Obama after lifting him up as the Savior of the world.  So the new strategy for some  is to tell Obama that he can find true policy success by not running in 2012.  At least that’s the game two Democrat pollsters are playing in last Sunday’s Opinion cover piece in The Washington Post.

In big bold letters, the Post suggested: One & Done. The article was written by Democrat Pollsters who worked for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton respectively.  Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen write with pride:

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

Caddell and Schoen go on to argue that President Obama has “largely lost the consent of the governed.”  They believe no one is following him, and since Obama promised to rise above politics, maybe giving up on politics would be a pathway to get things done.  They quote Obama’s own words when he once said to Diane Sawyer:

I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.- President Obama

Of course, there is no way these pollsters believe their argument. No one is that foolish. Obviously an Obama announcement to step down in 2012 would mean he immediately became a lame duck. America would focus on Hillary Clinton and the Republicans running for President. Moreover, the Republican congress would have the freedom to ignore the president.

President Obama was able to win Christian voters to the Democratic party in historic numbers in the 2008 election.  Just two years later they disappeared in the midterm elections.  But they weren’t raptured to Heaven, they returned to the Right.  And now everyone is asking why.

Exit polls leave no doubt that there was a clear shift of Protestants back to voting Republican which coincided with an emergence of more Catholics shifting away from the Left. Almost 70% of white Protestants voted GOP, a six-percent surge from 2008, and up eight points from 2006.  Only 20% of white evangelicals punched Democrat ballots, which was even less than in 2004 when Christian conservatives flocked to support George W. Bush.

The real change came with Catholics.  54 percent voted for House Republicans, compared to 42 percent in 2008, and 44 percent in 2006. Catholics and Protestants combined to make up nearly 80 percent of the electorate on Tuesday.

Why such a change?  Obviously part of the swing to the Republicans has nothing to do with religion.  People are voting economy and their wallets no matter what day, if any, they worship.  But personal economics can’t explain the whole picture.

“The economy is at the root of the Democrats’ problem, but it doesn’t mean that religion and other demographic factors cease to matter.” -  John Green, a scholar at the University of Akron who specializes in faith and politics.

Many observers are blaming the Democrat loss of Christian voters on the failure of Democrats to continue doing outreach to people of faith this election.  There are many articles written by everyone from CNN to Christianity Today claiming Dems gave up on faith outreach in 2010.

Reaching out to people of faith was effective for Democrats in both the 2006 and 2008 election.  The Left convinced many young Christians that it was progressive policies that truly reached out to help the hurting.  President Obama received a lot of support from both young evangelicals and Catholics with promises to change Washington and America.

For some reason the Democrats political machine decided to ignore faith groups to focus this year on getting out tried and true voters along with college kids who voted for Obama.  The strategy appears to have been effective in the West and Northeast but a dramatic failure in the Midwest and the South.

“One of the ironies is that we had huge success with (faith outreach).  It’s part of why we are in power. It’s been rough to see us go back to that pre-2004 strategy that had kept us in the minority.” – Eric Sapp, a partner at Eleison Group, a consulting firm that worked on religious outreach for dozens of Democratic campaigns in 2006 and 2008 — but none this year.

While many observers agree the DNC stopped reaching out to Christians, few have asked why the Democrats gave up faith in the faithful.  I believe they realized it was a waste of money, because Dems knew Obamacare kissed a lot of faith-based voters goodbye.  Why?

'Now this is how you should say it Brian...'

Should NBC take it as a compliment that the White House is watching so closely?  Most people would love to have the White House call them on the phone right?  Yet somehow I doubt Brian Williams and NBC News were too excited to have the people on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue telling them how to do the news.

On Thursday the New York Post reported that the White House called Brian Williams last week to complain about a news story he did on the Yemen based bomb scare.  On Friday, October 29th, Brian Williams was covering the Yemen plot and called the attempt “almost inept.”  Williams was discussing the facts of the case with NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Richard Engel and security expert Michael Sheehan when he made the comment.

Sheehan and Engel went even further then Williams (you can see the video at HuffPost).  Engel called the attempt “too inept” and suggested that the terrorists were merely trying to cause a diversion to both get attention and learn about the American response.  Michael Sheehan called it “a failed operation by Al Qaeda.”  Williams added that even though the attempt was inept, it’s still a serious warning to our country.

Somehow the coverage of two experts and Brian Williams wasn’t good enough for President Obama and his advisers.  According to sources, the White House immediately called Brian Williams and told him,

“We would never put the president out there saying it was serious unless that was the case.”

I’m not sure why the White House thought Williams wasn’t making the threat serious enough?  Williams actually said, “So this could be but one face of modern terrorism, terrorism of course, that is still capable of a spectacular attack against us.”  Obviously Williams isn’t downplaying the total threat, just the pathetic attempt at terror these mail bombs seemed to be.

Why would the White House be mad at that?  Maybe they just were hoping to come across as bigger heroes.  I’m not sure, but what bothers me more is the president’s involvement with trying to shape the job of journalists.  Since when is it a good idea for the government to be calling news desks to suggest how they should cover a story?  Isn’t NBC on Obama’s side enough?  Have these guys ever heard of the Bill of Rights and freedom of the press?

When NBC News hosts their election coverage with passionate Lefties like Olbermann, Maddow, and Chris Matthew we know they are self appointed defenders of the current administration.  But when the White House calls NBC news to tell them how to cover world news, it sounds a bit too much like a government-run press.  NBC and the White House have no further comment and are silent on the issue, but the rest of America should be screaming.

______________________________

Paul Cooper is a husband and father above all else.  With a wife and 2 daughters he could use a dog, but sadly he only owns a cat – a female cat no less.  Paul is also a pastor, blogger, and business owner.  Find him on Twitter.

NBC News is no longer pretending to have a cable news company.  They decided to let their 2010 election coverage be ran by all lefties with absolutely no conservatives or journalists at the front desk.  “The place for politics” is no longer “the place for journalism” (if it ever was).  Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews were the only ones allowed at the desk and spewed loony Left vitriol all night long out of anger that the American people were rejecting the Obama agenda.  The coverage hit its low point (and that is low) when Chris Matthews ruthlessly attacked Michele Bachmann.

Matthews: Are you hypnotized tonight?  Has someone hypnotized you?…Has someone put you in a trance tonight?

Bachmann: I think the American people are the ones that are finally speaking tonight – we are coming out of our trance, really we are coming out of our nightmare. I think people are thrilled tonight.  I imagine that thrill is not so tingling on your leg anymore.

Matthews went on to mock Bachmann more before defending himself again and again about getting a tingle up his leg over Obama.  Matthews said Bachmann was “moronically” staring at the camera when answering questions.  Obviously Matthews takes comments about himself personally, but he has no problem treating a congresswoman like garbage.  (By the way, will feminists question if Matthews would have treated a male congressman like this?)  I couldn’t help but think if the late, great Tim Russert would have stood for such despicable behavior.

Matthews rudeness wasn’t the only shamefulness of the night over at MSNBC.  Olbermann would later mock the new Speaker of the House John Boehner for his heartfelt tears about his victory.  But Matthews treatment of Bachmann was so bad that even Olbermann tried to cut him off.  Minutes later O’Donnell would tell Chris on air that Rep. Bachmann was merely staying on message and not in a trance.  He told Matthews that every politician from both parties does that all the time.  That shut up Matthews about Bachmann for at least a few minutes.

I know so-called liberals like to say Fox News isn’t journalism, but Fox had two non-biased journalists host their show and occasionally went to debate panels that were balanced with both ends of the political spectrum.  MSNBC and Chris Matthews ought to be ashamed of themselves for their coverage and they owe Michele Bachmann a sincere apology.

______________________________

Paul Cooper is a husband and father above all else.  With a wife and 2 daughters he could use a dog, but sadly he only owns a cat – a female cat no less.  Paul is also a pastor, blogger, and business owner.  Find him on Twitter.

In the ever changing world of popular news stories everyone appears to have forgotten about the Ground Zero Mosque.  The story captured America’s attention for about two months, and then the public suddenly and simultaneously forgot about it.  The anger subsided even though Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf still plans on building the Park 51/Cordoba House Mosque near the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

The final chapter of coverage appeared to be that the Right is just going to have to hate it while Muslims and the Left love the Mosque location– and have won the battle.  But wait, a surprise verbal grenade just may have ruined the cease fire – and you will be shocked by who threw it.

In an interview published Thursday, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world, told a United Arab Emirates magazine that he believes the Park 51 Mosque should be move further away from Ground Zero.  Prince Alwaleed said the mosque would only “agitate the wound” caused by the 9-11 terrorists.

I am against putting the mosque there out of respect for those people who have been wounded over there…The wound is still there. Just because the wound is healing you can’t say, ‘Let’s just go back to where we were pre-9/11. – Prince Alwaleed

That’s right, a Muslim Prince, who is one of the most powerful Islamic voices in the world thinks Imam Rauf should move the mosque away from Ground Zero.  Prince Alwaleed seems to almost quote countless people on the Right who have been called bigots by the Left for saying similar words.  I’m assuming most on the Left will try to ignore this story, but what was Imam Rauf’s reaction?

While we respect the points of view of other interested observers, we plan to build the community centre in this location because we have been part of Lower Manhattan for decades and we want to better serve the needs of our neighbours of all faith traditions. – Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

How many times will Rauf double down on this thing?  Prince Alwaleed is not merely an “interested observer.” First of all, the Saudi Prince is one of Rauf’s main financial backers.  He has funded conferences and a lot of the work Rauf has done.  However, Prince Alwaleed has kept any direct funding away from the Ground Zero mosque and now we know why.  He thinks it’s a horrible idea.

Prince Alwaleed’s opinion also holds weight because of his position in the Saudi royal family (nephew of King Abdullah) and his vast wealth.  Alwaleed was listed in the top 20 richest people in the world this year, and Time Magazine has even called him Arabia’s Warren Buffet.  In other words, his opinion is usually held in high regard.

Most supporters of the Mosque are hoping this story goes away, but at least one Park 51 backer has actually tried to link Alwaleed to the Right by highlighting his very minority ownership (reportedly only 5-7%) of NewsCorp which owns FoxNews.  Shaik Ubaid, co-chairman of a group that has supported the mosque, the Muslim Peace Coalition has attempted to make that silly argument.

If Prince Alwaleed cares about Muslims in America, then he should take his money out of News Corp. – Ubaid

There is no doubt that Rauf will not move that mosque at any cost.  If your billionaire supporter that is part of Muslim royalty can’t convince you, I don’t know what will.

But for those on the Right, the next time they are called a bigot for their sensible views on the Cordoba House, they can point out they are simply agreeing with the Saudi Prince.

Richard Warman

A short time ago, NewsReal readers got a surprise lesson in Canadian libel law when I was threatened with legal action for blogging (at my own site) about George Soros.

It’s not my first “brush with the law”: in 2008, I was served — along with Ezra Levant and a group of other Canadian conservative bloggers — for allegedly “libeling” a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

You see, a couple of years back, writers and bloggers like Ezra Levant discovered that this individual had an interesting way of spending his time:

At the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, one single activist — a lawyer named Richard Warman, who used to work at the commission himself — has filed 26 complaints, nearly 50% of all complaints under that commission’s “hate messages” section. He’s turned it into a part-time job, winning tens of thousands of dollars in “awards” from people he’s complained about in the past few years. Warman is a liberal activist, who likes to complain against Web sites he calls racist or homophobic. He’s had the common sense to stick to suing small, oddball bloggers who can’t fight back.

To put it as clearly as possible: Richard Warman has admitted under oath that he would visit little known “far rightwing” websites, sign up as a fellow “right winger” using screen names like “Lucy,” and engage commenters in “racist” conversations (such as chats about Canada’s immigration policies)  — then turn around and charge the commenters and the site owner with violating Canada’s Section 13 “hate speech” law.

The trouble with Section 13 is that, the way it’s worded, one only has to communicate messages “likely to expose” members of certain protect groups “to hatred or contempt.”

The key word is “likely”. After all, isn’t almost any eventuality “likely,” perhaps in some far off future? And “hatred and contempt” are feelings. Section 13 doesn’t say anything about assault and battery, mind you, or even property damage. Someone else’s hurt feelings are all it takes to get you in trouble, and since anything’s “likely”, you can’t NOT be found guilty.

So you won’t be shocked to learn that, up until very recently (when people like me started raising a stink about this state of affairs) the Canadian Human Rights Commission had a 100% conviction rate on Section 13 cases.

Mark Steyn picks up the tale, in his column for Maclean’s:

Who has availed themselves of the “human rights” protected by Section XIII? In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole “complainant,” one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal “human rights” star chamber since 2002 — and he’s won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights. Well, no. Mr. Warman doesn’t have to demonstrate that he’s been deprived of his human rights, only that it’s “likely” (i.e. “highly un-”) that someone somewhere will be deprived of some right sometime. Who is Richard Warman? What’s his story? Well, he’s a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission: an investigator. Same as Shirlene McGovern.

Isn’t there something a little odd in a supposedly necessary Canadian federal “human rights” system used all but exclusively by one lone Canadian who served as a long-time employee of that system? Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition? (…)

Now, Mark Steyn and Maclean’s have had their own semi-legal problems, but they haven’t been sued by Richard Warman for asking inconvenient questions about where our tax dollars are going.