I don’t know why Tipper and Al Gore have split after after 40 years of marriage and honestly, I hope we don’t find out.

The “celebrity break-up” where the former couple or their friends leak dirt to gossip rags for money and attention is one of the more sickening spectacles of the modern age. On the one hand, it’s like a train wreck and you can’t tear your eyes off of it. On the other hand, it’s really and truly none of our freaking business.

Let me also add that are already jokes and clever quips about Al Gore floating around. Here’s one…

Read the Rest at Right Wing News

In the business of mothers dying, fate dealt me a better hand than it did Saul Bellow. My mother lived to a ripe age and was vigorous to the end. When she had her first stroke my children were already adults, and had given me two grandchildren besides. I was well into the cycle of the generations. This prepared me in a way that the young Bellow could not have been for the cold hand of mortality that a parent’s death lays on your heart. When the time arrived for my mother to go, it seemed almost natural that her life should draw to a conclusion. Even though her death was sudden and unannounced, I had time enough to prepare for it, to see the vortex coming.

On the other hand, the months before she died were not unlike the day remembered in Bellow’s story. I, too, let myself go round like a turntable, running about the business of my life while the clock on hers ticked mercilessly away. What else I could have done? Can one focus on death like a watched pot, waiting for it to boil? If we concentrated on our dying with an intensity that never let up, everything in our lives would come to a stop, until our days would seem like the grave itself. So, instead, we don’t pay attention to where we are headed but go round on the turntable and pretend we are standing still.

Here’s a tip. As you go spinning round, turn one eye to the side every now and then. Look over the edge and focus on a fixed object. Find a way to calculate your progress. Otherwise, life will pass you by before you wake up.

My father — may his memory be blessed — was right: Never forget the cells that are dying. Life is not a turntable, and one day the music will stop. 

– The End of Time

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please submit it here. Please include:

1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

It’s nice to see Glenn Beck finally hit back at the George Soros steno pool known as Media Matters for America. Media Matters, of course, is the left-wing character assassination factory that day in and day out smears conservatives. Its mission is to stamp out what it calls “conservative misinformation.”

Beck noted that the Huffington Post and Media Matters have been out to get him for a long time. Media Matters is this “George Soros leftist socialist kind of all of these people rolled up into one,” he said in front of one of his famous chalkboard flowcharts showing the connections between leftists and left-wing entities.

Media Matters has been tracking the progress of a pressure group’s campaign to get advertisers to dump Beck since he suggested last year that President Obama may be racist.

The extremist racial grievance group is called Color of Change. Its leaders were initially enraged when that Beck did several news packages on Van Jones, President Obama’s ousted green jobs czar who describes himself as a communist. Jones is a founding board member of Color of Change.

The group’s co-founder is James Rucker, a former MoveOn organizer. He is also a co-founder of the Secretary of State Project, the group that helped to elect Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Ritchie, a former community organizer who has worked hand in hand with ACORN, helped set the stage for Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to steal the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota.

Listening to an Obama speech is like chowing down on a box of assorted chocolates – you never know what you’re going to get. The president’s commencement speech at the University of Michigan last Saturday was a classic case in point. To paraphrase an orator whose reputation for greatness did not involve the use of either speechwriters or teleprompters: never in the course of American politics has a president used so many words to say so little. For example, on the one hand, Obama deplores the nature of debate in the nation today:

“You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialist” and “Soviet-style takeover;” “fascist” and “right-wing nut” may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.”

On the other hand, there’s really nothing to worry about, for that’s the way it’s always been:

“In fact, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Since the days of our founding, American politics has never been a particularly nice business – and it’s always been a little less gentle during times of great change. A newspaper of the opposing party once editorialized that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced.” Not subtle.”

The president is also happy to acknowledge that too much government is obviously a bad thing:

“The democracy designed by Jefferson and the other founders was never intended to solve every problem with a new law or a new program. Having thrown off the tyranny of the British Empire, the first Americans were understandably skeptical of government. Ever since, we have held fast to the belief that government doesn’t have all the answers, and we have cherished and fiercely defended our individual freedom. That is a strand of our nation’s DNA.”

Which, of course, is why we need more government:

“But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs from the health care debate was one that read “Keep Government Out Of My Medicare,” which is essentially like saying “Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care.” For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.”

It’s pretty much all like that. It always is when Barack Obama hits the teleprompter. If you only listened to his words, you’d have a hard time figuring out what exactly this president stands for. Fortunately, we have the benefit of observing his actions, so America has a pretty good idea where his real sympathies lie. The mainstream media touted the Michigan commencement speech as a blast back at the “anti-government” crowd and, with a small correction, that’s what it was. Despite the bromides, the president was clearly firing back at what should correctly be called the “small government” sentiment in America that is embodied by the tea-party movement. (“Anti-government” is a phrase that properly describes anarchists, not patriotic Americans protesting more bureaucracy, more spending, more debt and less self-determination).

Nobody outside of crazed militia types says, or thinks, that “government is bad.” Rather, millions of Americans believe that government is inefficient, expensive and stifling and should therefore be used as a means toward accomplishing an end only when absolutely necessary. “Absolutely necessary” can be defined as some of the examples that Obama cited: police officers, highway safety and the laws and regulations designed to prevent workplace injuries and promote environmental responsibility. There’s a role for government in all of these cases that no private entity could fulfill, but it should be self-apparent that we all pay a price when we employ government to do so.

Having police protect us requires a justice system and, the government being what it is, that justice system is necessarily bloated, inefficient and burdened by mountains of contradictory rules. We deal with OSHA and the EPA, because most of us realize that somebody has to do what some private companies won’t: ensure that both employees and the environment are protected. But again, we pay a price. OSHA may help prevent injuries, but it’s also enormously powerful and too often petty. The EPA has done a stellar job of cleaning up America, but the massive bureaucratic structure it created while doing so now intrudes in the operation of private enterprise in stifling ways that have little or nothing to do with environmental protection. It’s always that way. Once the nose of the bureaucratic camel pushes through the tent, you’ve got yet another dromedary for a roommate, and the basic problem is that there’s not much room left in the tent that used to be our private lives for more camels.

The crux of Obama’s defense of big government is that, in a democracy, the “government is us.” No doubt the president really believes that, because his entire working life has been spent working for the government, in academia or as an advocate for people trying to get more out of government. His “real world” experience, as those of us who work in the private sector understand it, is zero. Accordingly it’s no surprise when Obama doesn’t understand that for the majority of us in the private sector – who pay for the ever-expanding public sector, by the by – the government isn’t “us” at all. The government isn’t the people we actually elected, as the president styled it, the government is rather the army of nameless bureaucrats to whom the people we elected have bequeathed, and continue to bequeath, enormous power over our lives.

The liberal myth says that conservatives and libertarians trust the private sector and don’t trust the public sector. That’s not the case. The truth of the matter is that we don’t trust anybody. But, when it comes to excess in the private sector, at least we have a chance of winning. If some company rips off a consumer, the consumer can go to the Better Business Bureau, complain to the Attorney General, call the local media watchdog, or employ a vast number of other means to settle the score. If a consumer thinks that a particular corporation’s product is inferior, there’s a host of other companies willing to fill the need. But, when it comes to government excess, people don’t have any hope of leveling the playing field unless they’re very rich or very lucky. There is no protection from our protectors. Anyone who has been victimized by an over-zealous IRS agent, EPA official, OSHA inspector or any other member of the bloated, blustering bureaucracy that runs more and more of our lives knows exactly how stifling big government is.

So yes Mr. President, we understand that we need some government in our lives. The problem, as we see it, is that we have so much damned government that it’s getting harder and harder to breathe.

[...] Islamic inmate Abu Dira wrote to lag magazine Inside Time about the X Factor protest at the Worcestershire jail.

He said: "Many Muslims in Long Lartin have handed back their televisions, as they are viewed as nothing more than a distraction to religious study.

''I do not envisage hordes of crying Muslims lamenting the loss of X Factor."

The inmate also blasted plans to fight Islamic extremism by flooding the prison library with books from moderates, saying no-one would read them, "let alone accept the viewpoint of those individuals who align themselves with occupational forces".

Figures revealed by the Sunday Mercury last year show the Muslim population inside Long Lartin has doubled in just two years, with a quarter of all prisoners now followers of Islam.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that extremists held in the maximum security terror detainee unit are being given fresh sheets after every cell search by drug dogs - so that their religion is not offended.

Yet non-Muslim prisoners have complained that Islamic inmates are being offered preferential treatment as others are not offered clean sheets....

And a former Long Lartin prison officer has also claimed non-Muslim prisoners are being intimidated for refusing to abide by unofficial rules imposed by Islamic gangs, about eating pork and listening to Western music. One Christian prisoner was even stabbed for refusing to read the Quran, she claimed.

"Prison officers feel helpless against this situation," she said. "It seemed to me like the prison authorities were scared to upset the detainees so they had to be seen to protect them - even if they were in the wrong."...

Female Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed to wear disposable sleeves in order to comply with NHS rules to prevent the spread of hospital superbugs. All staff involved in caring for patients should be 'bare below the elbows' to ensure sleeves do not become contaminated and hands can be washed thoroughly to prevent infections passed around the ward.

However female Muslim staff had been concerned about the rule as exposure of their forearms is seen as immodest.

Staff in several hospitals had reportedly refused to expose their arms for hand washing and 'scrubbing in' procedures before surgery.

New guidance from the Department of Health said staff can wear disposable sleeves which are elasticated at the wrist and elbow when in contact with patients.

The guidance also states that using alcohol gel to cleanse hands between treating patients does not contravene strict Muslim rules on alcohol.

The guidance was drawn up following meetings between the Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the NHS group and Islamic scholars, chaplains, multi-faith representatives and infection control experts.

It said: "Use of hand disinfection gels containing synthetic alcohol does not fall within the Muslim prohibition against natural alcohol (from fermented fruit or grain)."...

What a relief!

Intellectuals and Society
By Thomas Sowell
Basic Books, $29.95,
Review by David Forsmark

George Orwell famously said some things are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.

Thomas Sowell has made a career out of debunking those very things—most famously elite assumptions about racism and economics in classic books like Ethnic America, Race and Culture, Knowledge and Decisions, and The Vision of the Annointed.

I’ve often defined a postmodern intellectual as someone who is trained to be sure he knows better.  Thomas Sowell, however, is a true intellectual in the best sense.  His mind is not only open to the fact that he might not know better, his superb new book explains why it is impossible for one dictator or a small group of elites to know better than the great unwashed how to run their lives.

A constant theme of Sowell’s work is that elites regularly—and with disastrous effect—substitute their assumptions for the actual on the ground knowledge of the masses of people.  In Intellectuals and Society, he singles out so-called “intellectuals,” those whose profession is trafficking in ideas, and the echo chamber they tend to inhabit.

He charges that such people may be “intellects,” but that doesn’t mean they are very smart.

“The capacity to grasp and manipulate complex ideas is enough to define intellect but not enough to encompass intelligence, which involves combining intellect with judgment and care in selecting relevant explanatory factors and in establishing empirical tests of any theory that emerges. Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect.  Wisdom is the rarest quality of all — the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding.”

Of course, once you have spent a lifetime debunking things that are accepted as Gospel by the “intellectual class,” and prove Orwell’s thesis on a daily basis, the term “pseudo- intellectual” starts to lose its meaning:

The term “pseudo- intellectual” has sometimes been applied to less intelligent or less knowledgeable members of this profession. But just as a bad cop is still a cop — no matter how much we may regret it — so a shallow, confused, or dishonest intellectual is just as much a member of that occupation as is a paragon of the profession.

Recently, Boston College’s Alan Wolfe, a prime example of the above definition– wrote an intellectually dishonest pseudo-review of Intellectuals and Society for the usually rigorous New Republic—which David Horowitz dispatched quite nicely.

Wolfe’s review might as well have been titled, “I Represent That Remark.”  (I have done a couple of radio interviews with Wolfe, and found him to be less than impressive.) While Horowitz doubted that Wolfe, who protested the lack of musicians and novelists in Sowells’ discussion, had read the parameters of the discussion on page 2, I think it’s more likely Wolfe made it to the page 4 definition of pseudo-intellectuals, felt the pang of self-recognition, and then went on his very personal rant against Sowell.

Wolfe, ironically supplies the perfect example of how intellectuals who share the currently anointed vision of the world make what Sowell calls “Arguments without Arguments:”

Although many intellectuals are especially well-equipped by talent and training to engage in logically structured arguments using empirical evidence to analyze contending ideas, many of their political or ideological views are promoted by verbal virtuosity and evading structured arguments and empirical evidence. Among the many arguments without arguments are claims that opposing views are “simplistic” and opposing individuals unworthy, as well as assertion of “rights” and attributing to adversaries a belief and panaceas or golden ages.

…Before an explanation can be too simple, it must first be wrong.  But often the fact that some explanation seems to simple becomes a substitute for showing that it is wrong.

Usually, economists who discuss Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” do so in the context of business and the economy.  In Intellectuals and Society, Sowell not only gives the best explanation of why the invisible hand of self-interest works better than a central plan, he then applies it to subjects as far afield from economics as war and police shootings.

Sowell argues that the intelligentsia devalue “mundane knowledge” in favor of special knowledge.  However, mundane knowledge is what it takes to actually get anything done.

Someone who is considered to be a ‘knowledgeable’ person usually has a special kind of knowledge — perhaps academic or other kinds of knowledge not widely found in the population at large. Someone who has even more knowledge of more mudane things — plumbing, carpentry, or baseball, for example — is less likely to be called “knowledgeable” by those intellectuals, for what they don’t know isn’t knowledge.. .. It is by no means certain that the kind of knowledge mastered by intellectuals is necessarily more consequential in its effect in the real world.

For instance, it may be impressive that a physicist understands Bernoulli’s principles of aerodynamic lift, but you wouldn’t want him in the cockpit second guessing your pilot.  Sowell argues that the smartest man cannot know even 1% of what would be required to run the lives of the people in a community, but that is what experts, politicians and intellectuals attempt in their hubris.

Despite the often expressed dichotomy between chaos and planning, what is called “planning” is the forcible suppression of millions of people’s plans by government imposed plan.

….what is called “social” planning are in fact government orders over writing the plans and mutual accommodations of millions of other people.

That is why free markets, judicial restraint, and reliance on decisions and traditions growing out of the experiences of the many — rather than the presumptions of elite few — are so important to those who do not share the social vision prevalent among intellectual elites.

The intellectuals’ exultation of “reason” often comes at the expense of experience, allowing them to have sweeping confidence about things in which they have little or no knowledge or experience.

Intellectuals and Society is one of those books you want to read with a red pencil, to highlight nuggets like those above for later use.

While intellectuals’ visions cause social and economic disruption in many areas, none are so immediately deadly as their approach to war and foreign relations.  Sowell indicts the anointed for ignoring all empirical evidence and experience to the contrary, and insisting that the next dictator—from Hitler to Ahmadinejad—is the one who can be dealt with diplomatically.

Sowell concludes with a list of the anointed intelligentsia’s assumptions which have turned the world upside down, of which, he says, a complete refutation would fill volumes. “More important,” he says ruefully, “It fills our schools and colleges.”

The intelligentsia have treated the conclusions of their vision as axioms to be followed, rather than hypotheses to be tested.

Some among the intelligentsia have treated reality itself as objective or illusory, thereby putting current intellectual fashions and fads on the same plane as verified knowledge and the cultural wisdom distilled from generations of experience…

They have filtered information in the media, in the schools, and in academia, who to leave out things that threaten their vision of the world.

Above all, they exalt themselves by denigrating the society in which they live and turning its members against each other.

Of course, as he points out early in the book, an intellectual is someone who can lecture a police department on how many shots are sufficient to bring down an armed suspect under stressful conditions—when he himself has never even fired a pistol on a range.

Long before the Freakonomics phenomenon, Thomas Sowell was making this kind of real life critique from an economist’s point of view. Intellectuals and Society is accessible, witty, practical, brilliantly argued, and essential reading.  It’s sure to infuriate self-important elites.

In other words, it’s a typical Thomas Sowell book.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Monday that domestic violence by men has increased due to U.S. joblessness.

Reid, speaking in the midst of a Senate debate over whether to pass a $15 billion package meant to spur job creation, appeared to argue that joblessness would lead to more domestic violence.

“I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “Why? Men don’t have jobs.”

Reid said that the effects of joblessness on domestic violence were especially pronounced among men, because, Reid said, women tend to be less abusive.

“Women don’t have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time,” he said.

Read the full article.

Recently, the British appellate court made public a seven paragraph classified document detailing Ethiopian-born British resident Binyam Mohamed’s military tribunal case. Mohamed was a terrorist who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and charged with plotting to bomb American apartment buildings. He was released by the Obama administration without any trial for fear of torture allegation repercussions, and sent to Britain in 2009.

It seems that there is a constant disconnect between who are the “bad guys” and “good guys.” A former operative strongly stated, “People like Binyam Mohamed look like poor innocent victims and not the terrorists they really are.”

Just as the British court’s ruling was wrong, so was the way this whole issue was reported in the press.

Take for example Henry Chu’s article in the Los Angeles Times. Chu stated twice that Mohamed was mistreated, “while in US custody,” by depriving him of sleep and being shackled during questioning. Wonder if he read the same released document that I did? He was not water-boarded, beaten, and slapped around. How come Mohamed does not complain, as he did in 2005, about being forced to endlessly endure American music such as Eminem? To me, that might be true torture. The interrogation methods used on Mohamed seem pretty meek to me. A former high ranking CIA official emphatically stated that,

“We made sure the harsh interrogation was designed to not permanently hurt anyone.”

Interesting that Chu made sure he quoted Mohamed’s claims yet did not quote any from the CIA’s point of view. This is balanced reporting? Those former CIA officials emphatically stated that no one in the agency tortures. A former high ranking official summarized everyone’s feelings stating that “In no way the US did what he alleges. The US would never have done it.”

What is most upsetting is that people are not reverting back to September 10th, 2001 as General Hayden pointed out, but are reverting back to September 10th, 1776. The British, with the mainstream’s press’ help, are shooting the CIA in the back. I am really getting tired of having the CIA getting beaten up all the time. On the one hand there is Mohamed, who admitted through his representative that he trained and received instruction from Al Qaeda. Abu Zubaydah named him in a plot to commit mass murders. On the other hand there is the CIA.

Let’s put this in the correct time frame. Mohamed was captured and interrogated in 2002. Less than a year after America lost 3000 people in a brutal attack. Bin Laden threatened more attacks that would “dwarf 9/11.” In that atmosphere the CIA had to gain actionable intelligence and had to do it quickly. So what were they supposed to do, sit back, have tea time as they do in England, and hope the terrorists talk? I guarantee the press would make mince meat out of the CIA if another attack had occurred. Just look at the criticism the intelligence community received regarding the underwear bomber.

The premise the press takes is that the CIA are sadists who enjoy torturing. My premise is that if the CIA failed to learn information and disrupt plots they would have failed the American citizens. Looking at their track record since 9/11 I would say “good job, well done,” instead of quoting a terrorist about torture allegations.

Two events in the past week highlighted yet again the outrageous double standard that the mainstream media and the political Left apply to Sarah Palin.

When it was reported that Sen. John Edwards relied on his wife Elizabeth for advice on everything from public policy to haircuts, it was universally hailed as both sweet and savvy. She’s the smarter one anyway, some would even whisper. Similarly, when President Obama said he consulted his wife Michelle on important matters, it was treated as the sage decision of an intellectually curious man who loved his wife. Bill Clinton was praised for consulting with his wife and putting her in charge of health care reform – the latter especially viewed by the mainstream media as the greatest executive decision since Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society.

And then there’s Sarah Palin. When recently released e-mails revealed that Palin sought her husband Todd’s advice on numerous issues while she was governor of Alaska, the media gasped in horror. Why, he’s just a snowmobile racer!

Darker musings soon surfaced. The Washington Post “reported” that the e-mails “sent and received by Todd Palin further illuminate the personal quirks, machinations and frustrations of the Palins….” Machinations? Apparently, when male Democratic politicians consult their wives, it’s a sign of wisdom and humility. When a female Republican governor consults her husband, there must be a sinister plot afoot.

For the politically correct Left, gender makes all the difference. Thus, it was appropriate for powerful men such as Obama and Clinton to consult their wives because it fit the leftist notion that these men were sharing power with their wives. This transfer of power from males to females, no matter how slight, was progress. By contrast, Palin was transferring power to her husband. That’s bad because, you know, he’s a guy. Power has to run the other way.

One also detects an element of liberal elitism. Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are all lawyers, while Todd Palin is a high-school graduate who worked as a production supervisor for an oil company. In the view of the media and liberal elites, what could he possibly know?

The other Palin-related controversial non-controversy this past week happened when she was shown to have written a few notes on her hand for her Tea Party Convention speech last Saturday. The Left went bonkers: Oh, she’s so dumb she has to crib her speech!

But if that’s so, what conclusions should we draw from President Obama’s teleprompter habit? Four words on her palm show Palin is dumb, but President Obama can’t deliver a short speech to elementary school kids without reading the whole thing off a Teleprompter – and he’s a genius?

I don’t know if Palin had a full copy of her speech or more complete notes to read from during her Tea Party Convention speech. But I’d wager that most of the people criticizing her for writing on her hand don’t, either. They have no idea if she jotted bullet points on her hand to remind herself how to order her notes later or if those were her only notes. Either way, as silly as it does seem for a major political figure to use a middle-school note-taking method, it is proof of nothing. Yet, the Left pronounced it a sign of Palin’s imbecility without stopping to consider that she can’t be that dumb if she can deliver an entire speech with no prompts other than four words scribbled on her palm.

I’m not a Sarah Palin groupie. I don’t consider her a savior for the GOP or a top presidential prospect. I just hate the double standards used by the media and the Left to discredit conservatives and Republicans. And these double standards are never more evident than when Sarah Palin makes news.

Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

I knew when I responded to an NPR request for a comment on the late, unlamented Howard Zinn that I was asking for trouble — from the anti-American, Marxoid, neo-Communist left.  But I did it anyway because Howard Zinn’s life was so dedicated to evil and specifically to the support of mass murderers and self-declared enemies of his country, that someone with a brain unfogged by leftwing claptrap had to do it. As it turned out, if I had not contributed my soundbite it would have been left to depraved radicals — in this case Noam Chomsky and Julian Bond — to promote Zinn’s malevolent work to an NPR audience of millions. I was somewhat surprised that the leftists at NPR turned to me since I have been effectively erased as a public intellectual from their airwaves along with a legion of other non-progressives.

Only one of my books, Radical Son, has ever enjoyed five minutes of airtime attention on NPR. Oh — there is an exception. Before I voted for Ronald Reagan — or made the vote public — I was indeed a guest on “Fresh Air” to talk about The Kennedys, which I co-authored with Peter Collier. Although it is a book show and I have written more than a dozen well-received books since, the show has studiously avoided recognizing my existence; that is, for 25 years.

So this 30-second appearance was a rarity and came as a surprise to me. But evidently one 30-second appearance is too much for the totalitarians of the progressive left who have predictably launched an organized harassment campaign against the reporter who interviewed me and her boss. The smear crowds at Media Matters and FAIR have been hard at work ginning up the Pavlovian attack dogs to make the lives of NPR employees as miserable as they can.  These witch-hunts by the way are intimidating and effective. We’ll see how soon before NPR asks my opinion again.

Among the witch-hunters, Eric Alterman, as usual, provides the most amusement, complaining that I was not “qualified” to make a comment on Zinn:

“Horowitz, on the other hand, does not claim to have known Zinn personally, and shares neither his goals nor views. He has no specialized knowledge of Zinn whatsoever. The single qualification that David Horowitz possessed to be included in the piece on Zinn’s obituary was that he could be depended upon to be deeply critical of the deceased.”

Actually, I am eminently qualified to comment on Zinn, having written a portrait of him and his writings in Unholy Alliance, and having devoted hundreds of thousands of words to my area of expertise, which is the Communist and neo-Communist left. Alterman, on the other hand, is himself something of an impostor, having secured a sinecure as the “Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College.” If there was to be a single testimony to the debasement of the American university by tenured leftists this could be a candidate, since Alterman has no discernible literary interest, let alone expertise, that would qualify him for such a position. (Alterman’s degrees are in government, history, and international relations.) In fact, since I have written a book about Shakespeare I am more prepared to teach English than he is. However, I lack the principal qualification for a post in the English Department at Brooklyn College, since I am not a brain-dead, anti-American leftist.

From Lori Ziganto’s latest article at iowntheworld.

Oh, so hilarious,Robert Gibbs ! Stay classy, Press Secretary to the President of the United States!

Imagine: He thought this joke was so good, he actually prepared it before the presser. MKH is calling him the Dane Cook of politics for ripping off a goof that’s already been done three times by national figures, including Palin herself, but it’s worse than that. The Daily Show did a double hit on it last night, first with Stewart reading off his hand and then Wyatt Cenac reading off his belly, so that’s five times at least.

Too bad you are actually like the tenth media person/public figure to make that joke, Gibbs. The only time that it was funny was when Palin herself did it, writing the words “Hi, Mom” on her palm while making a campaign stop with Governor Rick Perry.

Getty Images

Gibbsy, you are way behind the curve, as always. Even the buffoonish, and creepily obsessed, Andrea Mitchell beat you to it!

Plus, a joke no longer works when the butt of the joke has already poked fun of herself. Although, I can see how you wouldn’t be used to that; the Obama administration does not seem to know about a little thing called self-deprecating humor.

See, not thinking that you are a perfect being, beyond reproach, is how most people behave. It’s one of those “little people” skills. You should look into it. I bet you expected Palin to act like your boss and start crying and bemoaning the big meany pantsers. I am going to be a “decider” now. My decision? Palin rocks. You stink. I also have a note on my hand and it says “Sorry, Gibbs. But she’s just not that into you.”

She’s getting to you, isn’t she, White House? She’s really getting under your super-thin skin. Now that is really hope-y, change-y.

Read full article and see the video here

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her work at Snark and Boobs, iOwntheWorld and Right Wing News.

Richard Trumka, current president of the AFL-CIO, cares about you, the American Worker. He cares so much that he is going to stop those dirty employers from forcing you to have a secret ballot. Until I heard him speak, I never realized a secret ballot was a bad thing. Hmm. I have yet to find a real, common sense argument for abolishing a secret ballot. I don’t know about you, but this is one big, protective teddy bear I could do without.

The EFCA is the most important legislation the AFL-CIO president would like to shove down our throats this year, as they seek to expand their membership numbers. He discussed the necessity of it with Bill Moyers on the January 29^th broadcast of “Bill Moyers Journal.” Trumka explained his position this way:

What an Employee Free Choice Act does is the following: It takes the choice of having a union away from the employer, which is where it is right now, and gives it to the employee. Under today’s circumstances, let’s say you have a unit of 100 people. And all 100 people say, “I want a union and I want it right now. I want it. I deserve it. I need it.” It’s the employer who says, “No, I’m not giving it to you. I demand a secret ballot.” What this does, it takes the choice out of the employer’s hand and puts it into the worker’s hands, who have the right.

I found it hard to finish my dinner when he explained how the evil employers are trying to squelch unions by insisting on a secret ballot for their employees. That’s what I get for watching union bosses on TV while eating.

Why did this give me indigestion, you may ask? Because I don’t think it has anything to do with enabling workers to vote for a union and everything to do with intimidation. I don’t think he has made a believable case for denying a secret ballot, but he does know it would benefit the unions to eliminate that option. This is the Chicago style leadership that I am hearing way too much of. It’s the cornerstone of his argument for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA.)

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like an employee would feel a lot more secure casting a vote without a union thug looking over their shoulder as they filled out the card. Wouldn’t that be just a tad intimidating? Have you ever been to a meeting where someone calls for a show of hands? Maybe you didn’t agree with the topic at hand, but it sure was uncomfortable not to raise your hand with everyone looking at you, wasn’t it? How much more uncomfortable might you feel if it was a roomful of union thugs watching you vote? Ouch. I think I’d just hand them the pencil and be done with it. I have never heard a more undemocratic and ridiculous argument.

Opponents of the EFCA seem to feel the same way.

“Voting by secret ballot is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and it’s time to guarantee this basic right for every American worker,” said Senator DeMint. “The Secret Ballot Protection Act is urgently needed to stop the growing attacks on workers’ rights. Unfortunately, current law does not guarantee a secret ballot; it can be waived by employers. Even worse, Democrats have teamed up with union bosses to completely eliminate secret ballot votes in the workplace, and instead impose a mandatory ‘card check.’ Under this undemocratic ‘card check’ system, workers are forced to sign cards in support of a union without a secret ballot election, which allows bullying and peer pressure to influence votes. ‘Card check’ is completely unacceptable and un-American, and we must pass the Secret Ballot Protection Act to safeguard workers’ rights for good.”

“Americans get a private ballot when they choose their President, their Congressmen, their local councilmen, even their PTA leaders — why should they not have the same right in the workplace?” said Senator Enzi. “Working Americans deserve to choose what’s right for themselves without fear, coercion or pressure, and without having to publicly disclose or defend their views to hostile coworkers or unions. The right to a private ballot is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, and the Secret Ballot Protection Act will uphold that right for America’s workers. I commend Senator DeMint and all co-sponsors of this bill for their efforts to protect workers from intimidation and preserve free, fair, and private elections.”

I am distrustful of a bill (and the people behind the bill) when it makes no common sense. I don’t see common sense alive and well in this bill, and certainly not in this part of it. If anything, it is responsible for an employer to insist his/her employees have the right to vote secretly and to be informed of other options. Doing it any other way is obviously manipulative.

Finally, I question the urgency of this bill and its’ supporters. Anything that has the strong support of the AFL-CIO, SEIU, President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden gives me reason for pause. Too often, it seems the real intent is all about power and control rather than any kind of improvements for the American people. This bill is no exception.

So, Mr.Trumka, if you don’t mind….I think I’ll just keep that secret ballot and fill that card out all by myself, thank you.

Read more about the EFCA here.

—-

Michelle is a small business owner in south Texas.

Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld is, in my refined and sophisticated opinion, one of the best and most underrated programs on television.  The in-jokes, ironically formulaic production, and all-over surreal quality are simply perfect at 3 a.m., plus the Gregalogue is consistently profound yet snarky.  They’ve even had some really good guests lately, like John Bolton, Thaddeus McCotter, and Oderus Urungus from GWAR via satellite from space (of course).

David Shuster, on the other hand, is an annoying little troll.  He constantly talks over his guests to the extent that nothing gets said (or heard) and Bill O’Reilly is a fantastic interviewer by contrast.  Hearing his voice also feels like what I imagine it would feel like being mildly tasered.  It’s painful in a dull, but sickening way.  There is something truly, deeply wrong with any network which gives that voice an hour five days a week.  That’s Mitch Albom’s old time slot.  Sure, his show was also awful, but at least he had a soothing voice.

So I’m quite objective.

Anyway, Shuster appeared on Red Eye Robot Theater (my favorite, which I often think about posting here but then decide it’s just too weird and creepy).  Then he wrote in to thank Red Eye for featuring him, so showed up in Red Eye Robot Theater again.

I love Red Eye Robot Shuster and it turns out that real-life David Shuster isn’t annoying at all in written thank you notes.  Way to go, Red Eye.  I never thought would be a Shuster fan, but I guess I sort of am now.

Howard Zinn, who died of a heart attack last week at the age of 87, was a scholar of extraordinary influence. Indeed, few academicians did more than the late Boston University professor to poison the minds of so many young Americans with a vulgar narrative of history in which the United States was forever cast as the villain.

The author of more than twenty books, Zinn was best known for his 1980 publication of A People’s History of the United States. Though its first press run consisted of a mere 4,000 copies, by 2003 the book had topped a million sales over the course of multiple editions. Today the title’s aggregate sales are approaching the two-million mark. A People’s History is assigned as required reading in high schools and colleges across the United States, not only in history classes but also in such fields as economics, political science, literature, and women’s studies. As a result, its author became a household name in academic circles and emerged as one of the most sought-after speakers on the college lecture circuit. As his colleague and admirer Noam Chomsky said last week, “The happy thing about Howard was that in the last years he could gain satisfaction that his contributions were so impressive and recognized. He could hardly keep up with all the speaking invitations.” Added Chomsky, Zinn’s “historical work changed the way millions of people saw the past.”

On this count, Chomsky was correct. At its root, A People’s History is a Marxist tract that paints the United States as the wellspring of earthly evil– a wretched embodiment of sexism, racism, and imperialism and a scourge not only to most of its own population, but also to a vast portion of humanity around the globe.

Zinn’s portrayal of America, the world’s standard-bearer for capitalism, reflected his deeply held conviction that free-markets breed greed, vice, and suffering. Having long maintained that “capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes,” Zinn in March 2009 rejoiced in saying, “[T]he American capitalist system is falling apart. And good! I’m glad it’s falling apart.” He cited capitalism as the reason “why we have 45 million people without health care,” “2 million people homeless,” and “millions and millions of people who can’t pay their rent.”

In A People’s History, Zinn claims to present American history through the eyes of those whom the raging tide of capitalism has engulfed in poverty and oppression: American Indians, blacks, slaves, women, and the ever-exploited “workers.” In 1995 Zinn wrote candidly about the political agenda that underlay his work:

“I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.”

In an interview three years later, Zinn elaborated that his goal in producing A People’s History had been neither to write an objective history nor to write a complete one:

“There’s no such thing as a whole story; every story is incomplete. My idea was [that] the orthodox viewpoint has already been done a thousand times.”

When confronted by critics who suggested that his book was “not an unbiased account,” Zinn shot back:

“So what? If you look at history from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated, it’s a different story.”

In keeping with that perspective, Zinn wrote America’s story as an uninterrupted narrative of depravity. Born in sin, the nation, as Zinn saw it, would forever be morally defective – at least until such time as its leaders might finally awaken to the healing splendors of Marxism.

In Zinn’s telling, America’s “Founding Fathers … created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.” The Declaration of Independence, Zinn said, was not so much a revolutionary statement about the God-given rights of man and the principles of limited government that logically flowed from it, as it was a cynical effort to manipulate people into rebelling against the King of England for the sole purpose of further enriching a handful of already-wealthy “white males.” And for good measure, Zinn condemned “the English invasion of North America” as “a barbarous epoch of history” that was “ruled by competition,” and whose noteworthy hallmarks included “deception,” “brutality,” “slavery,” the “massacre of Indians,” and “conquest and murder in the name of progress” – all as a result of the “powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property.”

The Pilgrims who came to New England “were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians,” Zinn explained – portraying those natives essentially as a peaceful network of brothers who had long lived in idyllic harmony with one another, until the fateful moment when white “invaders” (as Zinn put it) first arrived on the shores of North America.

From Zinn’s account, one would never learn that the history of American Indians was replete with inter-tribal conflicts of great violence, or that slave-trafficking played a very significant role in a number of Indian societies. Indeed, long before the first Europeans arrived in the New World, an elaborate slave-trading network had developed among the Indians of the Northwest coast, where slaves constituted as much as 10 to 15 percent of some tribes’ populations. But in Zinn’s version of history, the only slavery that mattered was the white-on-black variety. The vices of nonwhites were deemed insufficiently interesting to merit mention. The lines between good and evil were drawn with clarity and boldness. There were no shades of gray; there was only white wrongdoing on the one hand, and the radiant goodness of nonwhites on the other.

As Zinn saw things, America’s moral failings were not merely the stuff of yesteryear. When the professor looked at modern America’s physical and social landscape, he saw nothing worthy of redemption. Rather, he saw a nation engaged in “the poisoning of the air, the seas and rivers”; a nation beset by profound economic injustice; and a nation that spent far too much money on its weapons of war, but far too little on the teeming masses who had been dealt a most unfortunate hand by capitalism’s unpredictable caprices. All of these flaws, Zinn maintained, were the bitter fruits of the free market.

Where there was crime, Zinn saw “a class of criminals” who had been “bred by economic inequity.” Criminals, in Zinn’s calculus, were merely people engaged in understandable rebellion against the “fierce competition” and “the contrasts of wealth and poverty” that epitomized America’s “culture of possession.” He explained that American society, “so stratified by wealth and education,” lent itself “naturally to envy and class anger.” And of course Zinn saw racism, observing not only that “a disproportionate number of prisoners in American jails” were “poor and non white,” but also that black children were “four times as likely as white children to grow up on welfare.” All these things, Zinn reiterated, were the result of capitalist society’s failings.

The disgust that Zinn plainly felt for America stood in sharp contrast to his more benign view of the most notorious Communist dictatorships of the 20^th century. For example, Maoist China was, in the professor’s estimation, “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.” Castro’s Cuba, similarly, “had no bloody record of suppression,” according to Zinn. And the Marxist Sandinista dictators of Nicaragua in the 1980s were allegedly “welcomed” by the people of that country, while the opposition Contras – who were supported by the United States, and whose presidential candidate emerged victorious when a free election was held – were described by Zinn as a “terrorist group” that “seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua.”

During the Cold War, Zinn supported the Soviet Union in its rivalry against the United States. And in a pamphlet titled Terrorism and War, which he penned after 9/11, Zinn depicted America as a veritable terrorist state, while painting its jihadist enemies as freedom fighters who were bravely defending themselves against the ravages of U.S. imperialism.

Just as Zinn held the United States in contempt, so did he despise America’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. Zinn maintained, for instance, that “after the Six-Day War of 1967 and Israel’s occupation of territories seized in that war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the Sinai peninsula),” he personally “began to see Israel not simply as a beleaguered little nation surrounded by hostile Arab states, but as an expansionist power.” Missing from Zinn’s narrative was any acknowledgment of the fact that Israel’s role in the war was purely one of self-defense against an impending Arab invasion, and that the territories Israel captured in the battle were acquired not as a result of aggression, but in the course of a desperate fight for survival against the Jewish state’s would-be Arab exterminators.

During his long career as a professor and public speaker, Howard Zinn’s hatred for Israel and America alike became dominant themes of his writing and his pedagogy. As noted, he was more than candid about his burning desire to make his teaching of history “a political act.” His ultimate objective was to influence new generations of young students into becoming revolutionaries whose hatred for the United States would impel them to work toward “a transformation of national priorities” and a comprehensive “change in the system.” “The prisoners of the system will continue to rebel,” Zinn said in hopes that someday “our grandchildren, or our great grandchildren, might possibly see a different and marvelous world.”

That “world” was the Marxist utopia that had led to the deaths of so many throughout history – and that one of America’s leading historians encouraged his students and readers to pursue by any means necessary.

McSweeney’s presents the unused DVD commentary recorded by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky for The Fellowship of the Ring (platinum series extended edition, natch):

Chomsky: A terrible thing the Orcs do here, isn’t it? They destroy nature. But again, what have we seen, time and time again?

Zinn: The Orcs have no resources. They’re desperate.

Chomsky: Desperate people driven to do desperate things.

Zinn: Desperate to compete with the economic powerhouses of Rohan and Gondor.

And don’t miss Part II:

Zinn: The white hand of Saruman on the heads of the Uruk-hai. Of course, the hand in control is white. And good lord, these giant statues on the Anduin River. The Sentinels of Númenor. These huge, monolithic statues that have their hands thrust forever up. I think I can intuit what these sentinels are saying: “Stay away, Orcs.”

Chomsky: “Keep out of our land.”

Zinn: “Keep out of our land. Don’t come in.” It is little wonder that the Orcs are so warlike and angry.

h/t: a commenter at Reason’s Hit & Run Blog

Even Obama, Biden and Pelosi seemed bored during the State of the Union Address. Obama couldn’t even gin up enough energy to discuss “Gitmo”. But it does not matter what he said. It’s all over for his presidency.

The Democrat Party now understands just how bad they blew it in 2009. This is good for the country, although bad for their party. They were the proverbial “dog with a bone” peering at its reflection in the water. The Party saw an illusion of maximum gain and went for the second bone—-and now all is gone. They sought maximum change in health care, maximum change in energy policy, maximum Miranda rights for terrorists, and maximum deficit spending. But the American public does not want any of it. Consequently, Obama may have set the land speed record to “lame duckness” by any president in history.

The Scott Brown election was a remarkable event. On a day when Timothy Geithner was being grilled by the “shocked, shocked” Congress on AIG’s “secret” role, bankrolled by the taxpayers, in overpaying for bonds to prop up Goldman Sachs, etc., the president had his own “mark-to-market” problems. Brown was not just the 41st Republican Senator. If he were, there is plenty of money to bribe someone to pass desired legislation. But his election could have occurred anywhere in this country. The Brown election wasn’t a “message”, it was a “mark-to-market” of the president’s agenda. There are no longer enough Democratic Senators and/or Representatives willing to support proposed Obama, Reid, and Pelosi legislation. Now what?

We will have to endure a series of never ending public speeches by the president on transparently absurd proposals about “targeted spending freezes” and “targeted bank taxes” and “targeted tax breaks for small business”, etc. etc. The only real target is on the taxpayers back. But even these “targeted” proposals won’t happen. A herd of hyenas do not change their nature, and nor do reflexive herds of Statist Democrats. So we must await the election of 2010.

But this is not 1994. While there may be some chance for Republicans to narrowly take the House, the Senate seems out of reach, even as Republicans are likely to gain seats. Of course the economy could improve between now and then. This will benefit Democrats. But the Democrat Party wants it both ways with the economy. On the one hand, it is treated as some entity “out there” of which they are simple victims. On the other hand, they want to claim it would have been worse were it not for the stimulus bill—of which 65% has not been spent. What they don’t consider as possible is their proposals may have restricted private investment, thus making economic conditions worse. The major point is that while the Republicans will make significant gains in November, they will not be sufficient to alter the national agenda between now and 2012. Obama also is not Clinton. He does not have the ideological or personal temperament to change. So stalemate will prevail.

We have all heard of TARP and “$750 billion” as well as the stimulus and “$787 billion”. But these were projected numbers only. Only half of the TARP money was spent and some has been repaid. Only one-third of the stimulus money was spent. The Obama administration could reduce the deficit with the unspent funds. He could also support extending the “Bush” tax cuts. LOL funny, I admit. Once money is allocated in DC, it’s never given back. So we will continue with our “last days of Pompeii” mentality. We will also get 3 more years of Obama led verbal chaos combined predominantly with government inaction. That’s not the worst thing, I guess.

There is one caveat. It’s called, by normal people, the “war on terror”. Those guys aren’t going anywhere. So while our oblivious president can mostly do only verbal harm on the home front, all bets are off as he continues to read Miranda rights to suicide bombers.

Three years will seem like an eternity.

—-

Visit Michael Rulle’s Blog Here. See his previous NewsReal commentaries here.

Related posts:

1. State of the Union: “Woe to the People Whose Leader Has No Teacher”
2. State of the Union or State of Denial?
3. State of the Union: What Obama didn’t say about Terrorism

The enemy will never submit to anything other than Islam or to our deadly force. It’s not surprising that General McChrystal was hand picked by Obama, a man who isn’t comfortable with the word “victory.”  We haven’t even begun to fight against Jihad and this “soldier” doesn’t have any more fight left in him. What a disgrace.

Related posts:

1. I’ve Been Fed Too Much From The Islam Is Peace Menu – Enough, Already!
2. Obama: Raising the White Flag to America’s Terrorists
3. Peter Beinart: The War on Terror Isn’t a War

As most objective observers throughout the world marvel at Israel ’s efficiency and generosity in leading the medical aid efforts in Haiti , some bigots insist on using these efforts as an occasion to continue their attack on the Jewish state.  Both the neo-Nazi hard right and the neo-Stalinist hard left cannot help but to demonize Israel, regardless of what Israel does.

The neo-Nazi website ReportersNotebook.com features a blog entitled The Zionization of Disaster Relief. It accuses Israel of “exploiting the suffering of poor, defenseless Haitians on behalf of Israeli Triumphalism.”  It complains that Israel is rendering medical aid to Haiti only to deflect attention from its crimes against the Palestinians.

The hard left, even in a Israel , complains that Israel should not be sending medical assistance to such a faraway place.  Instead it should be sending it to nearby Gaza .

Even the New York Times, in an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the controversiality of the aid among some Israelis, failed to note the difference between Israel sending its limited resources to faraway Haiti and to nearby Gaza.  Haiti is not at war with Israel .  Haiti has not pledged itself to Israel ’s destruction.  Haiti has not fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians.  Gaza , on the other hand, has a popularly elected government that has done and continues to do all of the above.  Moreover, there is no comparison between the tens of thousands of Haitians who have died from a natural disaster, and the people of Gaza who suffer far less from what is, essentially, a self-inflicted wound.

Nor do the perennial enemies of Israel emphasize the comparison between tiny and resource-poor Israel , on the one hand, and the enormous and resource-rich Arab and Muslim nations, on the other hand.  While Israel digs deeply into its treasury and manpower to send medical assistance a quarter of the way around the world, Arab and Muslim nations are generally missing in action when it comes to relief efforts.  This is true not only in Haiti , which is a Catholic nation, but it was equally true when tsunamis and other natural disasters have devastated Muslim nations.

For those who argue that Israel is sending this aid to Haiti for its own selfish reasons, there are two answers.  First the realpolitik answer:  All nations have interests; and all act, at least in part, out of self interest.  When the United States government is asked by Americans to justify its multibillion dollar foreign aid grants, it generally responds by arguing that these grants are serving the interests of the United States .  When it comes to Israel , however, a double standard is always applied.  Israel must act only out of altruistic motives, while all other countries are entitled to leven altruism with self interest.  The second answer is that Israel is doing far more in Haiti than would be required to satisfy its self interests.  It is sending more aid per capita than any country in the world.  It is doing it with extraordinary efficiency and real impact.  Isn’t it at least possible that the millennia-long Jewish tradition of tzadakah—that is charity based on justice—is at least part of the explanation for Israel ’s generosity?

The fact that so many Israelis are advocating medical and other assistance to Gaza , certainly supports this latter theory.  Has any other country in the history of the world ever provided medical and other assistance to a people with whom it is at war—to people who continue to support rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism against its own civilians?  Again, a double standard.  The reality is that Israel will be extremely generous to the people of Gaza if and when they stop supporting attacks on Israeli civilians, stop making martyrs of their suicide murders, and stop encouraging their children to don suicide vests.  Contrast Gaza with the West Bank , which today has an improving economy, better travel conditions and among the best health care available in any Arab or Muslim country in the area.  The peace dividend the Palestinian people will reap from making peace with Israel is incalculable.

So continue to criticize Israel when it fails to live up to generally applicable international standards, but praise it when it exceeds those standards in rendering aid that has saved and will continue to save many lives.  Israel will continue to send disaster relief regardless of how the world reacts to it because Israelis understand how it feels to be subject to disasters.  But fairness requires that Israel not be condemned for its humanitarian efforts, and that its rendering of aid to Haiti not be used as yet another occasion for applying a double standard to its actions.

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?

Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.

via Why I Stand with Geert Wilders by Daniel Pipes on National Review Online.