Progressives and Conservatives

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” His latest book is Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Regnery Publishing).

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


Conservatives look to the past as a guide to the future. The past tells them who human beings are, and how they behave, and what is possible. In their approach to the future, conservatives are pragmatic and ground their hopes in experience. When the Founders were drawing up plans for the Republic they looked at the history of past republics and concluded that democracy was the least problematic form of government but that it posed the danger of a populist tyranny. So they instituted a system of checks and balances to guard against tyrannies of the majority and to provide the public with a cooling off period in which their emotion driven agendas could be corrected by reflection.

Progressives, by contrast, look to an imaginary future as a guide to the present and regard the experience of the past as “reactionary” and “backward.” Progressives have in their heads an image of what the future should look like based on emotion (hope and change), and they discount the experience of past and present as products of ignorance, prejudice and selfish interests, which they are determined to overcome.

Their agendas are actually much worse than this would suggest, since progressives imagine a future that is perfect, a new world in which there is no poverty, no bigotry, no irreconcilable conflict — where there is “social justice.” Against this imaginary ideal world nothing that exists can be justified or defended, or in the words of the arch rebel “everything that exists deserves to perish.” These were words were spoken by Goethe’s Mephistopheles, and quoted approvingly by Karl Marx.

Progressives are focused on destroying what is in the name of an impossible what-can-be (“hope and change”) and it’s very hard for them – impossible for the truest believers — to correct course when they are on the march and their programs aren’t working. All contrary counsel is seen not as experience-based wisdom but as obstruction and reaction.

Some years ago there was a C-Span debate between the “Democratic Socialist” — an oxymoron if there ever was one — Barbara Ehrenreich and the bloviating Cornel West on the left side and two Heritage Foundation fellows on the right. The subject was socialism and its failure in the Soviet Union and China. The Heritage team pointed out very politely and circumspectly as though embarrassed for the socialists on the platform that progressives had encountered some problems in implementing social justice in these countries and there were some casualties along the way.  Responding, Barbara Ehrenreich said (or words to this precise effect): We’ve only been trying socialism for 250 years and it’s not surprising that mistakes were made. Side note: This woman’s book attacking American capitalism and re-invigorating socialist delusions is assigned reading for students in virtually every university in the nation – at some schools required for all incoming freshmen with no countervailing text.

The investment of progressives in an imaginary future that is perfect is the reason their loyalties to their country often seem uncertain. Every movement force threatening America (or as they would frame it “American power”) however barbaric (think Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad or Hamas) can readily be seen by them as striving towards the imaginary future – the utopia of social justice – however distorted. It is always the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries who are responsible.   Cuba has been bankrupted by a deranged dictator and economic crackpot, but the American “blockade” is responsible. The Palestinians behave like Nazis with a national culture that is a death cult, but Israeli “apartheid” is responsible. Muslim radicals are homicidal racists, but that’s just because they’re oppressed by corporate America. Once they’re liberated and able to enter the kingdom of social justice, they will become enlightened like their progressive apologists.

While sabotaging America’s wars abroad and national security measures at home, progressives will protest  that they are patriotic and love their country, and want it to live up to its ideals. But their love is reserved for an ideal America that doesn’t exist and as long as it is inhabited by flesh and blood — and therefore corruptible — human beings never will.

  • http://samspolitics.com Sammy L

    Wow! such an an accurate description of liberals. I wish I could have all my ignorant liberal friends read this. It probably wouldn't matter though, as liberalism is a disease that manifests itself with irrationality and naivete. Great article, Mr. Horowitz!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/eerieSteve eerieSteve

    David:
    Refuse to concede the point that conservatism, by definition, means one who clings to the past and watch what happens to your liberal friends as they literally break down and come to the wicked conclusion that big government means death regardless of the name.

    It should read more that all empirical trends show conservatives as the one sole voice in history who wants to lower big government intervention. Think of Patrick Henry, who favored town meetings over a massive federal government in the first place, opposed to Alexander Hamilton.

    The prototypical progressive in my view is Charles Luccianno, like some urban insect, reckless and powerful and operating at high executive function. The prototypical conservative in my view is Wyatt Earp, moral, local, and operating at a high executive function. Those two prototypes make up roughly 90% of the American political scene.

    Then there are the masses, where the danger lies. In a solely pragmatic view, the real monsters should be those who do not possess a particular ideology, for ideologies never killed anyone, but those who mobilize masses to enact their own ideology. Oh, whoever am I thinking of?

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProf

    • trickyblain

      "The prototypical conservative in my view is Wyatt Earp, moral, local, and operating at a high executive function. "

      Yes. Any person who bans firearms in virtually all of his juristictions should be considered a true conservative. I'm sure the NRA would have just adored Earp!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/eerieSteve eerieSteve

        Apples and oranges. That's like faulting David Petraeus for blowing up weapons seized by terrorists. Next.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

        Really? I thought the man who banned the CARRYing of guns on the streets of Tombstone was Wyatt's brother, Virgil Earp.

        Besides, this is a misdirection, sir. The point is that … whether he was or wasn't … Earp's legend is that of a "moral, local … executive".

    • Noway2no

      History is rife with examples of failed societies and governments. Less common are long-standing successful ones. The most common thread of success seems to be freedom. The type of personal freedom that we have enjoyed here in the United States. To often people blur the distinction between freedom and license and that is where we find ourselves today. Leftists want license for all things that have been traditionally controlled and control for all things that have a tradition of freedom. This reminds me of adolescent rebellion, where a new vision arises in the psyche with little or no grasp of what has worked or failed in the past, they just know it is right. Leftists bring that adolescent fervor to the arena of political and social discourse; they just know they are right. I wish to conserve a state of affairs that while not utopia is much more good than bad. Conserving the ideals and traditions that have brought us here will serve us well, throwing them out just to see what happens will not.

      If "clinging to the past" means not repeating history's mistakes than count me in. It's all been tried before. Tribalism to anarchy we have examples to guide us. In the real world that is called wisdom.

    • Hawtjb

      Wyatt Earp moral a man? A man who spent a good portion of his life making a living as a professional gambler and probably as a pimp and after a life spent on both sides of the law was arrested for the last time in Los Angeles in 1911, at the age of 63, for trying to pull a con on a tourist is hardly the prototypical conservative you seek. If you're going to use a myth to make your point you probably can find someone better than Wyatt Earp.

      Sorry to ruin your movie fantasy.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/eerieSteve eerieSteve

        Yes he was a moral man because look at what he was fighting. Reagen lit it up as a youth in Beverley Hills as well. Is he not a conservative now? Eisenhower burnt German children. Wyatt was a product of his times and came from a decorated military family.

        Do you fashion yourselves creatures without sin? Do you know that's probably the worst sin of all?

        I choose Wyatt Earp as the prototypical conservative because he conserved big government power. In fact, he annihilated government power. He did it himself without any nanny state and he did it for a good reason.

        Also, I was being nice when I choose Wyatt. If I wanted to really be controversial, I would have picked this man as the prototypical conservative:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

        • Hawtjb

          For allegorical examples the real Stonewall and the fictional Wyatt Earp are both fine.
          The problem I have is that I've spent a lot of time studying the history of late 1800's and early 1900's Arizona, New Mexico and far West Texas starting in my youth when I knew old men and women who had known some of the interesting characters in their youth.
          I just get irritated by the hero status given to men like Wyatt Earp because he found a writer who wrote a largely fictional account of Earp's life while other far more interesting and accomplished individuals go largely unknown.
          A final comment on Earp he hardly can be said to have annihilated government power, if anything when he had it as a lawman he usually used it for personal gain and to settle person scores.
          Contrast Earp to Pat Garrett, a man of many sins but none involving outright criminal behavior, who was killed because of enemies he made in pursuing the investigation into the disappearance of Albert Fountain and his son, long after the famous events involving Billy the Kid.

    • http://theunknownamerican.blogspot.com unknown

      We have fallen for the conservative/liberal political identity that so many progressives had installed into us. How is it a conservative is 'racist' but a liberal is not? How is it a conservative is 'greedy' but a liberal is not? How can a conservative or a liberal by be anything other than what they believe politically when politics is a discussion about the structure of government? its like saying conservatives drive chevies and liberals like ford. This could be true but what does the choice of cars we drive have to do with our political identity?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WildJew WildJew

    David Horowitz wrote: "Conservatives look to the past as a guide to the future. The past tells them who human beings are, and how they behave, and what is possible. In their approach to the future, conservatives are pragmatic and ground their hopes in experience…."

    Indeed knowledge of the past is critical. However, not all conservatives are "pragmatic" in outlook. Some are principled. Often those who are principled conservatives are people of faith; folks who believe in revelation as well as experience.

    For example, pragmatists could justify their support of former president George W. Bush, even as he lied about Islam – a "religion of peace" – and lied about Israel and the Jews – who "occupied" Muslim land even as they "oppressed and humiliated" Muslims, particularly at checkpoints. Bush naively believed Israel's retreat from "occupied" Muslim land would solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    • John C. Davidson

      I detect a bit of anti-semetic rhetoric here, sir. Aren't we all entitled to a safe haven?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WildJew WildJew

    Pragmatists maintained their support of President Bush on the basis that it was Bush who was prosecuting the war on "terrorism;" not a war against totalitarian Islam since Islam is a "religion of peace" that's been hijacked by terrorists.

    In summation, pragmatic conservatives are more often willing to compromise fundamental matters of principle and conscience. Principled conservatives are not inclined to compromise fundamental matters of principle.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WildJew WildJew

      Isn't this political pragmatism in action? I would not do anything to help this man get his agenda through Congress!

      Bishops offer help with Senate

      If the House agrees to abortion terms, Richard Doerflinger, an associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says clerics will work to move the upper chamber.

      POLITICO

      The Roman Catholic bishops signaled Thursday that if agreement is reached with House leaders on anti-abortion language, the church would work to get the votes needed to protect the provisions in the Senate — and thereby advance the shared goal with Democrats of health care reform…..

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33962.h

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/temarch temarch

    There will always be a portion of society that lives to prey on others. Crooks, robbers, thieves, murderers, scam artists, etc. A utopia could never be formed because these people will always be there and those who are producing will resent those who arn't. Solzhenitsyn described this in his Gulag Archipelago. Human nature cannot be changed to suit the dreams of anyone.

    Thank you for another great article.

    • http://theunknownamerican.blogspot.com unknown

      You are correct and that utopia should be avoided at all cost because it ultimately interferes with human freedom. We all know that adultry is wrong but should there be a law against it? Of course not, that would be violating our freedom. Corporations are greedy but does that give us a right to restrict their behavior? I hope not because my perfect utopia is the maximum human freedom.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/eerieSteve eerieSteve

    *pfffft* If anything, human nature exists as a great lawn mower, mowing down the stupid, barbarous and violent! In the great course of history of the human animal, the final verdict shall be there are those who died young, and then there are those who died old. 90% of the time the people who died old are who you should listen too.

    Michael Moore wants you to be like a Canadian. I say live like an Old American. Dress well and carry guns.

    Let's simply change the terms of the debate to Republicans want to "conserve" government power while liberals are just too happy to be "liberal" with an empirical trend of masses versus elites! Funniest game in the world.

  • Peter Voisin

    Progressives:

    The name that they use is the exact opposite of what they stand for. They are "Re"-gressives when it comes to the founding Father's ideas. The "Re"-gressives regress BACK to the time before the Charters of Freedom where the world tried all kinds of government and they all did one thing in common. They took away individual freedom in the name of "Progress".

    The Progressives ARE the "Un"-Constitutional Party of America.

    If you want to drive Progressives crazy, call them out EVERY time with the Truth by saying:

    "Typical Progressive response".
    "You try to change the subject so you can stop from losing the argument"!

  • davarino

    Excellent, the totalitarian tendency occurs when the "progressive" realizes the perfect cannot be achieved without intervention/oppression. The conservative believes in freedom. The individual has the freedom to fail or succeed. If you fail you have the freedom to learn from your mistakes and start again. The individuals as a whole have the freedom to be compassionate for the unfortunate and lazy. When the government is "compassionate", it is doing so with my money without my consent.

    Both have imperfections, but one encourages inefficiencies and disscourages participation of the populace to cooperate together for success, the other encourages success and prosperity for a much larger majority than the other and still has a greater outcome for those who are not a part of that majority.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

      Where do you find the courage to believe in freedom?

      There's nothing like record profits for insurance companies and them raising rates again to make you want to cooperate together for our success. Why don't poor people who can't afford insurance look up at rich insurance execs and take the example and work extra hard? Then they wouldn't be poor anymore…problem solved.

      Idiot.

      • davarino

        Oh you check mated me with the idiot come back. Brilliant bubba. If you read my comment rather than being the revolutionary you are, you would have noted that I said both are imperfect, but one is less imperfect.

        I would love for you to take note that it is the dems that bailed out AIG and are against tort reform

  • DOn

    What the F is "just" aboput forcibly taking the property of some to give to others? What is 'social justice' except legalized thievery by the government in power?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

      I know what you mean. Everytime I see the fire department putting out a fire, or the police arresting a perv…I think, "those motherf*ckers are taking my hard earned money".

      And sure I'd like to think an ambulance would come if I called 911, but I don't want to pay anything for it.

      • davarino

        Its nice to see how the other side thinks. So we have no consent for how OUR money is spent? It all belongs to the government.

        Pretty soon we can all quit our jobs and live off the public dole. But who will be left to pull this wagon? Maybe bubba, with his giant corporation he will build to provide for us all. But what will keep bubba from becoming greedy and keeping all his money? We the people will decide how you spend your money.

        Sorry, straw man again. But you know straw men can make very good examples.

      • http://theunknownamerican.blogspot.com unknown

        I would like to know what does the actions the police take have to do with wealth giveaway? Were the police taking my car and giving it to my neighbor? Was the ambulance taking driving around and taking anything of mine and giving it to someone else? NO! The police is nothing more than a function of government because it has to have someone that can enforce laws. You can't have government without the someone, such as the police, enforcing laws. They, like everything else with government, are a necessary evil that has to exist.

  • D Bruckheimer

    "It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future" …Yogi Berra

  • just me

    It has been said that “liberalism is a mental illness.” I believe this to be true and as David writes “nothing that exists can be justified or defended…” There is no reasoning with them, like there is no reasoning with a mentally ill individual.

  • andy

    Progressives have dominated inner city politics for years. Their results have been consistant.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      A good example of that is the gentleman that heads Detroit's public schools. The man admits that he can't write.

      Consistent results, indeed …

      • John C. Davidson

        A typical liberal follower idolizing and hoping for a slice of the pie, but gets only the crust.

  • Barry Cooper

    When one exists in time, in history, decisions must be made. This holds whether one has a good or bad means of making such decision, or whether one even accepts in principle that such a thing as "good" and "bad" decisions can be made.

    We are told, by contempory, self declared leftist luminaries, that the logic of logic is that of repression; that all empires, old and new, used what they called "reason" to justify manifest predations and injustices. Logically, then, we need to reject logic, and the language of logic, which is simultaneously the language of repression.

    • http://Hollywoodremoteleash.com A Bit Profound

      Barry — What the hell are you talking about — Sounds like Gobeldegook !!!!!!!

      • Barry Cooper

        Apparently you need to be a bit more profound. Obviously, that wasn't written for you. I know how to dumb things down; I just don't always choose to do it.

        I will add that if that second paragraph is incoherent, it is incoherent for precisely the same reason that leftist academics are incoherent: they don't know what the hell they are talking about. They have no useful ideas, and to the extent ANY of their crap is actionable, it points in the polar opposite direction of efficacy by any RATIONAL standard, which is to say one which connects the intention with the effect.

  • Barry Cooper

    Yet, decisions still need to be made. This creates an ontological problem. It is solved,by leftists, in two steps: first, through conformity to an elite who determine what to believe; secondly, through a naive belief in a future earthly Heaven in which the anxiety of believing nothing is lifted through the miraculous advent, through a sort of deus ex machina they can neither predict nor create, of global peace, prosperty, and harmony.

    All you really need to do to understand Leftism is ask: if you believed nothing, but still wanted to view yourself as a good person, how could you engineer that? Could it be by some other method than surrounding yourself with people who told you what you wanted to hear, and who reinforced in you the fundamentally narcissistic ignorant bliss we are all prey to?

  • UCLA'65

    The original Progressive:

    "You will not surely die. God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

    And so it has been ever since, with Man trying to play god, creating and destroying as he sees fit; and forever trying to recreate the Eden he has lost.

    • trickyblain

      lol – so Satan was the original liberal. And I'm sure you also think Jesus was a conservative – being that he was an anti-wealth, anti-staus-quo revolutionary who practiced nonviolence. Makes sense.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/WildJew WildJew

        Jesus is a mixed bag, if you will. Jesus did have some (what you might call Classical) "Liberal" tendencies, as did the "Old Testament" prophets, yet he also was firmly rooted in the law of Moses and the prophets, none of which taught contemporary liberalism. The law of Moses is about private property. The tithe (the Temple tax) was / is ten percent for both rich and poor. There is no graduated tithe (or tax) for the wealthy. The prophet Samuel warned the Israelites of the dangers of big government. Jesus also has been described as a Jewish "chauvinist." Today he would be a Zionist. It is the left, that in large measure, sees Israel and Zionism as a great evil in the world. Jesus is no leftist in this respect.

        • trickyblain

          Interesting points. I wonder what modern Jesus, as a Zionist, would express as the best way of dealing with the Palestinians…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/WildJew WildJew

            I can assure you, he would not embrace this sham of a peace process the US and the international community has been pushing. He would not agree with "land for peace." Maybe "peace for peace." The Torah is clear. The land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.

            My guess is he would say, "I am sorry there were other peoples living in the land of Israel when many of the Jews (Zionists) returned to their ancient homeland." The Muslim-Arab world never reconciled itself to a Jewish state in the Middle East. But God made an "eternal" covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and with their descendants, to give to them all of this land, in perpetuity. Doesn't eternal mean eternal? It is repeated over and over again in the first book in the Bible; in the book of Genesis.

            You don't think Jesus is unaware of this, do you?

          • Democracy First

            And let's not overlook that while, yes, there were other people living there when jews returned, these other people were occupiers of jewish land they stole 1,400 years ago. At least, that's how contemporary narratives see such things. Except, of course, when it comes to jews and Israel. In which case the left amends its morality to, last ones there – before the Jews – own it.

            (And we also know that a great many of these there only moved into permanent settlements once Jews created agriculture, an economy and modern services. before gthat they were what they had been for ages, Arabs, whether egyptian or of the lands of Jordan, lebanon and Syria.)

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

          Yes of course…he didn't teach "contemporary" liberalism…lol.

          Actually, the Pharisees, in trying trick Jesus, asked him about Roman taxes. Jesus asked them who's face was on the coins they used. They said the Roman Emperor's face was on the coin. Do you remember what Jesus told them?

          I think Jesus would be perplexed at people fighting over shit land for generations…and horrified at the prospect of people killing each other in his name. Jews don't even believe he was the messiah.

          It's sad to see people so self righteous they assume Jesus would think like they do regardless of what he said and did.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/WildJew WildJew

            You wrote: "Actually, the Pharisees, in trying trick Jesus, asked him about Roman taxes. Jesus asked them who's face was on the coins they used. They said the Roman Emperor's face was on the coin. Do you remember what Jesus told them?"

            He did not tell them to give their property and wealth to Caesar so that Caesar could redistribute it to the poor or whomever. In the Bible, charity was / is an individual moral obligation. It is not the responsibility of the government; the king, as President Obama would have us believe.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

            Yes…well…you can't see anything but taxes=theft. So naturually you don't see Jesus telling you give up your money to some commies! Oh dear no…

            Even in the time Jesus was supposed to be walking around, the Roman Empire had public works projects funded from taxes. I'm sure the Roman citizens cursed taxes as they drank water brought in from the aquaducts or as they strolled down constructed roads.

            But you're hardwired. Taxes=theft and you're already a biblical scholar so what's left to say. I was focusing on something Jesus actually supposedly said….not my opinion on what the Bible overall tells us about our moral obligations to charity or something…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/WildJew WildJew

            I commented earlier on your points. My comments appear to be gone.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

            Sorry. That has happened to me before, or there is problem with posting and you don't get your typing back. I usually write in an outside text editor and paste it in. That way if they lose it, you can paste it back in.

            Cursing is also a possible reason.

      • UCLA'65

        First off I said Progressive, not Liberal.

        Secondly I said he was the originator of the philosophy which progressives find so appealing.

        Lastly, though Liberation Theologists like to claim Jesus was about a political movement (like Mohammed) he most definitely is not. His message is to the individual about the individual.

  • Judahlevi

    The problem with the Left's "uptopia" is that no conservative would want to live there. In fact, utopia for progressives/liberals is a place with no opposition to their thought therefore no conservatives would be allowed.

    Ultimately, the only way progressives will get their utopia is by controlling or eliminating anyone who disagrees with them. This will happen with a totalitarian state.

    • http://theunknownamerican.blogspot.com unknown

      I know you wrote that in a joking kind of way but I actually do believe that and am scared shitless of these people. I believe they are capable of holy war against anyone who disagrees with them.

    • http://Hollywoodremoteleash.com A Bit Profound

      You got it. Our government is now already calling the people who used to be considered to be the backbone of America, the potential enemy. (You know the hard working, tax paying, God fearing, traditional patriotic citizens) Obama is driving us to economic collapse. Why does he want a civilian security force as large and well funded as the military? Perhapse to get rid of those potential enemys – the decenters. It's only a matter of time 'till total colapse and martial law. The revolution is on. They need colapse to help it along.

  • John C. Davidson

    When you have politicians claiming to adhere to a certain principle within their own party feeling the power and force behind him, it becomes all to evident to all when he is exposed that his beliefs change rapidly. The very thought of losing his status as an elitist becomes very clear as his rhetoric dances to a different tune. All the philosophy is geared to impress the masses, but the results speak for themselves.

    Would you marry an adict in the hopes you could make them different. Perhaps, a child-molester to show your children the lighted path. To what extent will you sacrifice for an unjust cause or is it fame you seek; notoriety. Your name in a history book regardless of the consequences. We have too many lost souls drifting in ideological wonderland.

    Good read, David.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

    Oh holy Christmas David….how many more of these are you going to write. Where do you find the courage to give yourself decent and good qualities and give your opponents crazy fantasies?

    You don't get to decide what the words mean and what people think and feel. You'll notice your arogant power doesn't extend beyond this bizarro world. So put it in Discover the Network…so your writers can link to it….lol

    • http://theunknownamerican.blogspot.com unknown

      bizzaro world = obamanation

  • Lyberty Belle

    The other night ABC news did a story about the Haitian children who were adopted by white families in the US. Their biased piece strongly suggested that black children raised by white people is not in the best interests of the black children. A black adoption agency totally agreed. I guess it’s in the best interest of black children to be raised in foster care for eighteen years and never have a family life. ABC news only had one black male to make this claim. Only one?!!!!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/eerieSteve eerieSteve

      Reverse that and the backers of the company are rode out on a rail as being racist. Imagine how "white babies raised by black parents are evil" would play?

    • lenna darlling

      And this relates to David's statements how?

  • Linda Rivera

    Why has my comment been deleted? Please explain why! Thank you so much!

  • Linda Rivera

    PETITION FOR JUSTICE FOR U.S. MILITARY HERO

    Deliberately withholding critical evidence in U.S. court; prejudice and injustice against non-Muslims must stop! Non-Muslims must have the human right to defend themselves from violent Muslim attackers. NON-MUSLIMS MUST HAVE JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS

    WORLDNETDAILY
    Sentence for killing terrorist reduced
    Appeal still pending for soldier who fired in self-defense
    January 23, 2010

    By Bob Unruh

    The sentence for a U.S. soldier who says he killed an al-Qaida operative in self-defense has been reduced by the Army Clemency Board from 20 to 15 years, according to a statement released by supporters of 1st Lt. Michael Behenna.

    The focal point of the arguments has been a statement by a witness for the prosecution that Behenna's own description of shooting the al-Qaida operative in self-defense was the only explanation supported by the facts.

    The issue is raising concern because of the decision by the prosecution to not only exclude the statement from the case but withhold it from the defense until after the conviction.

    "Yet it is still hard to believe that this wonderful young man who fought so bravely for his country could sit behind bars until he turns 40 years of age. I promise you that our fight for him will not end until Michael is free once more."

    We believe that Michael's appeal is especially strong based upon the prosecutor’s withholding of critical evidence from the jury,"
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag

    The DEFEND MICHAEL BEHENNA Website
    http://defendmichael.wordpress.com/

    Please sign the petition for a persecuted American military hero!

    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi

  • Linda Rivera

    PETITION FOR JUSTICE FOR U.S. MILITARY HERO
    Deliberately withholding critical evidence in U.S. court; prejudice and injustice against non-Muslims must stop! Non-Muslims must have the human right to defend themselves from violent Muslim attackers. NON-MUSLIMS MUST HAVE JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS

    WORLDNETDAILY
    Sentence for killing terrorist reduced
    Appeal still pending for soldier who fired in self-defense
    January 23, 2010

    By Bob Unruh

    The sentence for a U.S. soldier who says he killed an al-Qaida operative in self-defense has been reduced by the Army Clemency Board from 20 to 15 years, according to a statement released by supporters of 1st Lt. Michael Behenna.

    The focal point of the arguments has been a statement by a witness for the prosecution that Behenna's own description of shooting the al-Qaida operative in self-defense was the only explanation supported by the facts.

    The issue is raising concern because of the decision by the prosecution to not only exclude the statement from the case but withhold it from the defense until after the conviction.

    "Yet it is still hard to believe that this wonderful young man who fought so bravely for his country could sit behind bars until he turns 40 years of age. I promise you that our fight for him will not end until Michael is free once more."

    We believe that Michael's appeal is especially strong based upon the prosecutor’s withholding of critical evidence from the jury,"
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag

    The DEFEND MICHAEL BEHENNA Website
    http://defendmichael.wordpress.com/

    Please sign the petition for a persecuted American military hero!

    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi

  • Linda Rivera

    PETITION FOR JUSTICE FOR U.S. MILITARY HERO

    Deliberately withholding critical evidence in U.S. court; prejudice and injustice against non-Muslims must stop! Non-Muslims must have the human right to defend themselves from violent Muslim attackers. NON-MUSLIMS MUST HAVE JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS

    WORLDNETDAILY
    Sentence for killing terrorist reduced
    Appeal still pending for soldier who fired in self-defense
    January 23, 2010

    By Bob Unruh

    The sentence for a U.S. soldier who says he killed an al-Qaida operative in self-defense has been reduced by the Army Clemency Board from 20 to 15 years, according to a statement released by supporters of 1st Lt. Michael Behenna.

    The focal point of the arguments has been a statement by a witness for the prosecution that Behenna's own description of shooting the al-Qaida operative in self-defense was the only explanation supported by the facts.

    The issue is raising concern because of the decision by the prosecution to not only exclude the statement from the case but withhold it from the defense until after the conviction.

    "Yet it is still hard to believe that this wonderful young man who fought so bravely for his country could sit behind bars until he turns 40 years of age. I promise you that our fight for him will not end until Michael is free once more."

    We believe that Michael's appeal is especially strong based upon the prosecutor’s withholding of critical evidence from the jury,"
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag

    The DEFEND MICHAEL BEHENNA Website
    http://defendmichael.wordpress.com/

    Please sign the petition for a persecuted American military hero!

    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi

  • http://Hollywoodremoteleash.com A Bit Profound

    The Marxist Humanists (Progressives — really Regressive) consider Capitolism unfair: even aggressive & oppressive & want to make the poor feel Victimized & Oppressed to cause revolution. They see humans as basicly good & therefore deserving of all basics and full equality in every way. Penalizing the productive to enable the lazy is what seems most fair to their Godless degenerate minds rather than seeing that the hard working & talented, not only in becoming prosperous, provide work for others, but have a right to keep the fruits of their labor. Christians believe human nature to be corrupted and in need of change. To bring success teach & preach morals, ethics, values, personal responaibility, personal reliance, honesty & disipline. Capitalism is failing only because that is being replaced with an entitalment mentality which will "progress" all the way to tyrany. (110 million, mostly their own, killed by Communists) (Only to be out done by Islam – 270 million)

  • http://cinesourcemagazine.com/index.php?/member/228156/ Felicidad Zimbelman

    I know, I know! And I’m 37! :-D

  • http://www.petsyy.com/2012/02/29/7/ pet insurance

    I really enjoyed your post it was very interesting