The Muslim Brotherhood Inside the Conservative Movement

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.”

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


Pages: 1 2

Editor’s note: Below is David Horowitz’s speech at CPAC 2011:

The Transcript:

Our country finds itself at a troubling crossroads. We confront challenges from forces that are opposed to its very existence as the nation our founders created. These forces are secular and religious and are poised to attack the foundations of our nation both at home and abroad. In facing them conservatives have a special responsibility as a patriotic vanguard dedicated to the principles that have made America what it is, and who are willing to confront the enemies that seek to destroy her.

At home the adversary calls itself a progressive movement but its goal is to transform America into a socialist state, which would mean the destruction of our liberties. For as the founders warned, there is an ineluctable conflict between liberty and equality. You cannot make men equal without taking away their freedom. The founders devised a Constitution designed to thwart what they called “wicked schemes” to take wealth from one segment of the population  and distribute it to another.

Our political parties are now divided between those on the left who want to use the state to redistribute wealth and those on the right who want to protect individual liberty, between those who want to expand government and those who want to limit it.

Here is my advice. You cannot defeat the forces who want to expand government merely by arguing that government is wasteful and inefficient and that the private sector accomplishes tasks better. We have already enlisted those who understand the benefits of the private sector. The only argument that will persuade others is the argument that government is destructive and hurts the people it is intended to serve.

I will give you one example. One of the largest government programs that virtually everyone supports is public education. But public education administered by government is destroying the lives of millions of poor and mainly black and Hispanic children every year. Half the children in our urban public schools drop out before they graduate and half of those who do graduate are functionally illiterate. Stop the government from destroying the lives of millions of poor black and Hispanic children by giving full tuition education vouchers to every child. Take government out of the school business. Vouchers are the civil rights movement of the 21st Century. That is an argument that can persuade the unpersuaded.

We are also faced both at home and abroad with an existential enemy in political Islam. Political Islam is a totalitarian movement that seeks to impose Islamic law on the entire world through the seizure of states by stealth and electoral means insofar as possible, and by terror where necessary, and sometimes by a combination of the two. There are hundreds of millions of believers in political Islam, and it is growing force within the Islamic world itself.

In Egypt, 85% of the population is on record approving of the death penalty for apostates who leave Islam. The same people also believe that the death penalty for defectors from the faith is a form of democracy and religious freedom. There is nothing new in this apparent contradiction. Communist totalitarians also worked through the electoral process wherever possible and through violence when necessary. They called the police states and gulags they created “people’s democracies.” The Soviet Constitution was described by its creators and by the progressive movements that defended it as “the most democratic in the world.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of political Islam and has spawned 12 terrorist armies including al-Qaeda and Hamas is a political force in Egypt that is also willing to participate in elections and in the civil institutions of society. The Holy Land Foundation, a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood was the largest Islamic charity in America until it was raided by the FBI and put on trial in Texas for funding Hamas. One of the documents seized in a concealed basement at the Foundation headquarters and put into evidence by the FBI was the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan for America. The stated goal of this plan was to “destroy the American civilization.”

The plan called for building a secret leadership in America and for the creation of a series of Brotherhood front groups that would appear to be participants in America’s democracy until the time came when and where force would be necessary to accomplish the Brotherhood’s goals.

When I read the document, it reminded me of the Communists in America who were on trial for conspiring to overthrow the government, which they surely were, but who described themselves as Jeffersonian democrats. I knew several of them personally, including one who went underground to prosecute the violent revolution. Thanks to the imprudent tolerance of our courts, their convictions were all overturned.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_Mac

    Great speech, David. I hope to God those listening take heed.

  • AzDebi

    I pray to God that people are listening…Thank You David!

  • http://www.fx-exchange.com/ Bowmanave

    i think that is the problem Sam the media in the US tends not to talk about these guys nor soe the administration. To start out they started about 1929 or 28. Their one goal is to bring about a Muslim world, through jihad eithe violent or cultatural it matters not to them. They trained Osama Bin Loudin as well as Hamas and others. They were behind the killing of sadat and one other leader in egypt back in the 50's. They are not nice people, they want Sharia to be the law of the world. The U.S. better wake up and smeel the coffee before these guys get control in egypt.

    • Beth

      "They are not nice people"

      They are murderers. Why not call them what they are?

  • Hermés

    You should read this article:

    Strengthening the enemies
    http://laiglesforum.com/strengthening-the-enemies

  • shadowsinthecave

    To paraphrase Lincoln at Gettysburg . "Now we are engaged in a great political war on the homefront, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war."

    Today, we are foot soldiers on the homefront of a battle Lincoln could never have envisioned. Our weapons are the Internet and the 1st Amendment. David's closing words are right on the money when he said: "I urge Conservatives to school themselves in the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and the network it has spawned and to be vigilant against its spread into the ranks of the Conservative Movement, the Republican Party and Government of the country we love."

    This is the real deal, folks. No bombs and bullets here, but ideas, information and the will to go forward and confront the enemy. For our children … and our grandchildren …. and the country we love.

  • ze-ev ben jehudah

    Muslim infiltrations are getting worse by the minute.It is a cancerous disseas
    spreading trough our free Westren world.We should front it with a final crusade.
    The winner takes it all????A strong man is needed badly to lead us.

  • geez

    God Bless David Horowitz… he lays it on the line, no BS.

  • aspacia

    Wonderful speech David!

  • Waldemar

    Right on target, David. The long-term solution is, indeed, education. I have recently retired form a U, which is in reality nothing more than a Madrassa. David is right – we have to stress the destructive nature of government brainwashing madrassas and press for real "public" education, that is, run privately. The elimination of the Department of Education is a must.

  • GKC

    As for the question of whether Suhail Khan believes now what he openly said then, my answer is this. When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses. This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not.

    Words of wisdom borne of experience

  • mjmiddleton

    Good speach!

    The Obama administration's head of intelligence recently was quoted saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely a secular organization". If he really believes that, America is in deeper trouble than even David Horowitz is articulating. If he doesn't believe it, why is he saying it?

    All one has to do to understand the aims and objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood is to look at what is happening in Darfur, Sudan today. The Muslim Brotherhood backed National Islamic Front (which is calld the National Congress Party today) has ruled Sudan with a religious extremist iron fist since 1989, and has been responsible for genocides and ethnic cleansing in the Nuba Mts, Ruweng oil fields, South Sudan and now, against its own Muslim population in Darfur. An estimated 3-4 million people have been killed. It is no mystery as to what the aims and intentions of the MB are.

    That the US government could allow this type of organization to have access to top positions in government, especially in homeland security is tantamount to treason.

    • mary anne

      Agree…… Treason is abounding when an administration opens the doors of OUR country’s security to an avowed enemy of our Nation. The Muslim Brotherhood and all of its tentacles have announced the rule of Sharia Law for the (whole) world. A rule of law that undermines the essence of freedom for ALL humans in self-determination. It utilizes religious fanaticism for power and control over a secular populace with God given inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What Iman (who is just a man) has the right to determine my life, my liberty or my pursuit of happiness? No Iman does, only myself (and my personal relationship with my GOD) has that RIGHT — whether right or wrong, I determine my own fate. An administration that opens the doors to political Islam which has publicly voiced the overthrow of the Western world needs to be voted out of power come 2012.

  • penny678

    After watching David's speech, I went and did my own research on the relationship between Norquist and the MB. As usual, David was correct in what he said.

  • Steve Chavez

    "The enemy within within." David's exposing of Khan was amazing since we always detail the likes of Khan in brotherhood with the Left and eventually, in the Democrat Party. David would surely not speak of Khan if he didn't have his facts straight. Yes, defectors are at the forefront warning us of the motives and tactics of the group they left , like Bridgette Gabriel's openness about the Muslim movement she grew up with, but David BRAVELY exposed Khan's silence and continued ties to fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood. David threw one KO punch after another and hopefully he will be on national cable news exposing, with facts, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Student Associations, and all their fronts. THANK YOU DAVID HOROWITZ!

  • jacob

    Do Americans really want to commit suicide as shown yesterday in the news ??

    In the news broadcasting last night, a poll result came out showing a majority of
    people FAVOR A 2ND TERM FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MUSLIM…!!!!!

    As the saying goes, fooled me once, shame on you.
    Fooled me twice, shame on me…

    • BS61

      What polls?

    • USMCSniper

      "The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The public can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
      Author unknown

      They might just reelect him again in 2012, because the RINOS are already caving in and his approval ratings are 50% plus. Mostly it is the women and metrosexual men who all seem to have a Kim Kardasian syndrome for the chocolate love hammer.

  • Shaun

    The DNI was created on the recommendations of a huddle of Monday morning quarterbacks known as the 9/11 Commission. As Judge Richard Posner noted the principle of selection for this group was “partisan balance” not expertise on issues of terrorism and public administration. Their conclusions were typical of “re-inventing government” schemes: another layer of administration bureaucracy and more centralization suposedly to “connect the dots.” On Feb. 10 last Thursday we saw the performance of a DNI who not only could not connect the dots but who could not even see the dots within his clear field of vision! The Vinogradov Commission in Israel identified the centralization of intelligence as a primary cause of Israeli intelligence failure which allowed Israel to be caught off guard by the Yom Kippur attack in 1973 against Israel.

  • joe

    I was listening to a church of Christ sermon this morning, where the pastor came down on every Christian denomination as adding to the bible, and I kept waiting for him to denounce Islam as another religion which has added another bible to the bible, but he thickened out and didn’t even mention Islam.
    This is the same reaction our politicians have toward Islam, they ignore it.

  • jewdog

    Grover Norquist represents the plutocratic wing of the Republican Party. Given the enormous financial resources of the Middle East petrocracy, it should hardly be surprising that there would be Islamist fellow travelers among conservatives. I'm actually surprised that the situation is not worse than it is.

  • Yephora

    There is another fast rising 'conservative' [sic] icon, whom many are lately touting for president, who should have the whistle blown on him. I'm talking about New Jersey's governor, Chris Christie who, like Grover Norquist, has troubling past and present ties to Islamic radicals.

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/2506/gov-chri
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/new-jersey-gove

  • M.Westphal

    I hope many people in Germany will read it !

  • http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/ SeaMystic

    The core of Islam.

    Bukhari: V5B57N119 Qur”an Surahs.

    When Mohammed was approached by his other wives, about the repeated gifts given to Aisha by other Muslims, after he took his routine turn at her, as his nine year old bride. “The Divine inspiration never came to me, while I was under the blanket of any woman among you except Her (meaning the 9 year old Aisha)”.
    This is through the act of pedophilia, what was the source of his inspiration?

    Bukhari: V4B52N44

    The Qur’an agrees, saying any peaceful Muslims are hypocrites, destined for Hell. “The Worst of Creatures”, “The most Vile Animals”.

    Islamic University in Medina Imam’s state: “It has been unanimously agreed that Imam Bukhari’s work is the most authentic of all other sources in Hadith literature put together.
    Second only to the Qur’an.

    • USMCSniper

      Top immigration officials in Canada and Pakistan say all they can do is reject the sponsorships of husbands trying to bring their child-brides to Canada. The men have to reapply when the bride turns 16. The marriages are permitted under Sharia Law." Also some of the brides can be 12 years old or younger and are "forced" to marry. The practice occurs in a host of countries including: Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Lebanon." Add Yemen and Saudi Arabia and Somalia to that list, for starters. And instead of 'the practice occurs in a host of countries' the paper should have written "the practice is legal in a host of Muslim countries…".

  • Poliscribble.com

    The attack on Suhail Khan is going to accomplish nothing more than inflaming more hatred against America. I suppose the Middle East is supposed to look at your attack on an Islamic American who is taking part in the democratic political process as a signal they should embrace democracy? Hopefully few people heard the speech(and even fewer react to it) so it can just fall by the wayside. Criticizing moderate Muslims, and propping up more puppet dictators is just going to get The West treated even more harshly over the coming decades of demographic change. Might be time for a little more moderation from the right.

    • BS61

      Wake up! Why do you care what they think?!

      There is no such thing as a moderate muslim. http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/05/son-of-hamas-f

      • Poliscribble.com

        I care what the Middle East thinks for the same reason you want them to care what America thinks(In terms of the Western version of democracy/freedom/politics/ect.) You just don't want to see that this goes both ways. You can say there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, but maybe they think there is no such thing as a moderate jew, or christian? This is the kind of thinking that is going to do nothing but make the future more violent as our world continues to transition into a single community.

        • MarkRich

          "but maybe they think there is no such thing as a moderate jew, or christian?" Yea, name a terrorist attack in the last twenty years by a Christian or Jewish group. Cant do it can you. Name a Muslim country where freedom of religion is comparable in the least to a Christian or Jewish leaning nation. Name a Jewish or Christian organization of any significance that advocates world domination. Cant can you. –I think this equality plane of thinking is very reminsicent of the old USA-USSR moral equality argument that was made during the cold war which was hogwash and verified to be so in the archives of the old USSR and the dissidents. The comparisons you wish to imply are made of whole cloth.

          • Poliscribble.com

            Name a terrorist attack? Bulldozed homes of Palestinians surely count in the contemporary sense.If not that, then from the perspective of Islamic Arabia the invasion of multiple countries could also easily count. The devastation caused by these two examples accounts for many more times the loss of life of all Muslim terrorist acts combined. This isn't even debatable, it is simply fact. To deny it is to make oneself look silly.

            Name a group that advocates world domination? From the perspective of the Islamic world America and the West as a whole do more than just advocate it, they engage in it. Again, stop looking at things from the comfort of your own world view, be a little more intellectually adventurous. If the judeo-christian world was as dominated by Middle Eastern culture as it is currently the other way around, would you not also feel that big, bad Islam was practicing world domination?

            It's all about understanding. The wheel of civilization is turning, folks, and it will be wise to embrace non-western cultures and try to gain some understanding.

    • Stephen_Brady

      I don't care what they think. We must do what is right for our country, without regard to whether someone else loves or hates us.

      • Poliscribble.com

        If not making more enemies was better for your country, would you be behind it?

        • StephenD

          Poli, you're right! We should lay down and be quite. Learn to live like good dhimmi. We should believe it is a choice for little girls to marry men. We should think it is acceptable to kill someone who decides they don’t believe as we do anymore. We should know that it is good for a man to beat his wife.You think if we make ourselves over to be more in line with the "non-western" way of thinking they will like us more? I say to hell with them. They certainly don't have to live as we do but it seems most folks want to. Maybe you could explain again what the people in Egypt and Iran and China, and Cuba want? What a dolt!

          • Poliscribble.com

            You seem to be saying that not propping up/funding puppet dictatorships in the Middle East and not attacking Muslims that take part in the American democratic process will turn us into an Islamic state. Surely that's not what you mean, as that would be an embarrassingly silly claim to make. So I'll pretend that's not the case and let you edit your post to something less ridiculous.

          • Poliscribble.com

            No? Ok, guess you are just content making a fool of yourself. That's a shame.

  • ConLati

    We need more people like you David! I have been doing my homework and what I have found is nothing short of horrific. They will infiltrate our elected officials and eventually our judicial system. If anyone doesn't believe this…please do your own research.

  • http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/ SeaMystic

    What we are allowing in our countries with Muslims is the most dangerous we have ever experienced.

    Bukhari: V9B88N174
    This is for the naive.
    "I heard the Prophet saying, ' Islam cannot change".

    It can't be reformed,Islam remains mired in deceit, hate & violence.

    Bukhari: V4B52N22Allahs Apostle said,"I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand".

    Terror is Muhammad's legacy, his motivations was money.

  • http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/ SeaMystic

    check the Ban Islam petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/MYSTIC/petition.htm

  • MarkRich

    "When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses." —This is the most important point of this article to me and the one NO ONE wants to deal with on any level anymore in our society. Whenever I hear a Bill Ayers type or a person has made claims in the past and refuses to repudiate that past and to condemn that organization they are still unsafe. Sometimes I feel as though I have fallen down the rabbithole in Alice in Wonderland as I watch supposedly intelligent people ignore this blindly in the name of democracy or multiculturalism or whatever present movement is on going. Watching things unfold in Egypt one would believe based on the MSM that democracy and freedom were only around the corner. History is ignored and the past is repeated.

    • sodizzy

      Yes, it is. Thank you for pointing it out.

      I, for one, am adding it to my signature block.

  • http://www.fxexchangerate.com/ fxgeorges

    AP describes Muslim Brotherhood as “conservative.” Dan Rather applied the same tag to the Soviet government’s attempt to retain power in the late 80s and to the once representative, Gary Condit of the Democrat Party.

    AP, like The Dan hope that the average schmo connects anything described conservative as belonging to the Republican Party.

  • sodizzy

    Your advice to portray the govt as destructive, which it is in so many areas, needs to be heeded. When people comprehend this, they may change their minds and their votes.

    One flagrant example, besides the schools, and I like your voucher for every student idea, so they can opt out of this destructive system, is the well-known destruction of the black community by govt welfare but there are other more up-to-date examples we can use.

  • Kevin Stroup

    Please, Please, please. We sit around and act as if we cannot find the enemy until to late. They call themselves MUSLIMS. We KNOW who the enemy is, and no, there are no moderate versions of Islam. Ever hear of a moderate Nazi? What we need to do is start acting on this fact.

  • Beth

    "Suhail has also been made a board member of the American Conservative Union and was the moderator of a panel on Religious Liberty yesterday at this event"

    I ask, Does 'freedom of religion' include the right to incite the masses into violence?

    When will the media voices make it an issue? It's a simple (and most important) question that requires nothing but a "yes" or "no" answer:

    Does 'freedom of religion' include the right to incite the masses into violence?

    If the answer is "no" – then the Koran (the sole supreme authority of all of islam) is illegal.

    Where are the class-action lawsuits against the muslim groups mentioned in the article above?…..if the answer is "no" ?

    • Beth

      Article. IV. Section. 4 of the United States of America

      The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

  • Beth

    Austrian MP Ewald Stadler adresses Turkish Ambassador
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRmgI_WXff0

    The world needs more leaders like MP Ewald Stadler – who will 'tell it like it is' no matter what the "tolerance romantics" think – better then most I've seen so far.

  • thomas paine

    At home the adversary calls itself a progressive movement but its goal is to transform America into a socialist state, which would mean the destruction of our liberties.

    listen, buster, i don't tell you what you believe, don't you tell me!

    besides, lets see if you can manage to define "socialism" correctly, in such a way that it corresponds to a dictionary definition and not in a way that would apply to every government that ever existed on the face of the earth

    then, if you please, tell me what you consider the liberties that you you can prove "progressives" are trying to take away. please use examples that you didn't merely hallucinate or otherwise just make up

    thank you!

    • Reason_For_Life

      What rights? I tell you.

      The right of private property.
      The right to bear arms.
      The right to control your own medical treatment.
      The right to speak your mind
      The right to publish your ideas.
      The right of contract.
      The right of free association.
      The right to worship or not according to your beliefs.

      Every one of these rights is under assault from progressives.

      • thomas paine

        you have merely asserted this – made it up

        show examples from real life

        Every one of these rights is under assault from progressives

        this is merely an assertion without a shred of proof

    • fmobler

      [1] "Hate speech" codes are numerous college campuses. These are currently on the books, no hallucination there.

      [2] The right to enter contracts freely (Obamacare puts an end to that). I wish I were only making this one up.

      [3] Numerous non-"right to work" states. Again, fettering my right to enter a two party contract.

      [4] Gun laws that demonstrably are not correlated with reduced gun crime (Washington, Chicago, inter alia), and hence have highly questionable state interests that might override an enumerated right.

      [5] Euthanasia laws for which there is now considerable evidence (particularly in the Netherlands, but recently also in US states with similar laws) that so-called medical professionals use the law as an excuse to make decisions about whose life is worth living.

      [6] Abortion, the best ever abridgment of liberty, since the victim can't complain.

      • thomas paine

        so sorry that some colleges would get upset if you used the n-word in a speech. apparantly this is something you feel somebody has stopped you from doing.

        pitiful

        • fmobler

          It is interesting that you jump so easily to this conclusion about someone you do not know. If you know anything at all about me and my extended family, you would not accuse me such a deeply offensive thing. I am upset by your accusation. On the other hand, I am not going to ask the state to exert its power to stop you.There is a difference between my choosing to use or not use certain language because I do or do not wish to offend someone and having someone else make the choice for me.The first simple point to make is not whether some colleges would “get upset”. It is whether they would do use state power to do things like expel me. The second point is that your characterization of speech codes as being about the “n-word” trivializes what is at stake. These codes have been used to stop political speech. For example, some public universities have stopped student groups from displaying actual photographs of aborted fetuses on the grounds that they are offensive. Sure the photos “offend”. That is the point.Let me turn the table. I believe the f-word is profoundly offensive precisely because it is used to convey violence (“f you”, “go f yourself” and so on), and yet also carries the meaning of a sex act. It is undeniably and purposefully conflating violence and sex. This promulgates a rapist's understanding of sex. So how about you get behind a campus speech code that sanctions the use of the sexist f-word. Or would you feel that your rights to use misogynistic language would be unfairly abridged? [I can play the Inquisitor's game too.]—

          • thomas paine

            i see. you feel that your freedom of speech has been seriously restricted because some public universities restrict you from showing pictures of aborted fetuses on campus, which you appear to feel is the only way you can make your point.

            surely you know that freedom of speech is not utterly without restriction. the textbook example of crying fire falsely in a crowded theatre comes to mind. also, i am sure that i would not be allowed to parade on the public street near where you live carrying large pictures of naked female vulvas, even if i felt that it was necessary somehow to make some valid political point.

            a university is a place where students are supposed to be concentrating on their education. being confronted with horribly shocking pictures of aborted fetus is highly disruptive of this end. i don't suppose you would like to see such pictures as you reach the nearest bus stop or corner store every day, even though this would not be a place where young people would be trying to concentrate

            i suppose i could also feel that i might want to dramatize the horrible wounds suffered by the children of iraq in the course of our liberation and occupation of that unhappy country. how aware are you of that? children who would not have had their faces burned off, perhaps, if we had left them to deal with their murderous dictator by themselves. basically, we live our lives here serenely unaware of what our occupation has cost the iraqis. the same thing has happened in the course of our occupation of afghanistan, even to the point where hamid kharzai specifically brought the subject up on his last visit to washington and begged us to be more careful with our bombing

            so, i think this is a valid political point. i am ashamed of how recklessly we have acted in our liberation attempts, and especially of how we blithely ignore it, safe and sound here in our wonderfully safe country with no wars.

            perhaps i might feel that i should be allowed to parade up and down the public street near where you and your children live every day carrying a large picture of an iraqi child with his face horribly burned – to make a valid political point. perhaps i might think that it would be necessary to drive home the point by shouting "how callous and indifferent can you be to the sufffering we are causing in iraq and afghanistan" over and over and over to all the passersby. as i think about it, i wonder why i have been so indifferent as to not even try

            but i expect i might run into some restrictions in this effort

            demonstrations in this country often require permits from the police, allowing a demonstration to occur only at a specific time and in a restricted area. us "leftists" noted sardonically during the bush administration the considerable distance that anti-bush protesters were required to be from mr bush when he came to town. if i wanted to parade on some main street day after day with horrible pictures of aborted fetuses i might expect after a while that the local storekeepers might ask the police if i had a permit to shock potential customers this way day after day

            but i wouldn't whine about how "conservatives" had taken away my right of free speech if i was restrained from parading around in front of safeway every day with horrible pictures. that's because i understand how this society works and the limits of appropriateness in making a political point

            have i answered your point?

          • fmobler

            Your habit of personalizing this is not exactly helpful. But since you seem intent on insinuating something about me, let me put that to rest. No. I have not felt any wish to display pictures of aborted children on a college campus (the one I work at for example).Nor as your earlier post suggested have I felt frustrated on not being able to us the n-word (though I have read Huck Finn — out loud — to my daughters — shame on me).Also, your little switcheroo of talking about “teenagers” at university and parading on private property (in front of a Safeway). University students are not children, public universities are not supermarkets. As for your example of the terrible injuries of the Iraq war, I am glad you brought that up. At my university and at many others around the country and in Europe, photos of Iraqi wounded *were* displayed on the campus. They were horrifying and made me and, I hope, anyone with any compassion terribly uncomfortable. That was a good thing. Making me confront the morality of my government's decisions is vital. Anyway, regardless of my personal view of the Iraq war (opposition to it, if you care to stop painting me a certain way), the students (and some of my fellow faculty) who put those pictures up were exercising their free speech in an appropriate way — not harming anyone, not shouting cliches in a crowded theater, and all that.Pictures of aborted fetuses are a different story. They are not permitted to stay displayed on my campus (or at least, somone comes along and takes them down quickly on the couple of occasions I can recall).It seems pretty clear that you don't spend a lot of time on university campuses these days: You say “a university is a place where students are supposed to be concentrating on their education.” Yikes. What in the world do you mean by that that should protect the little darlings from confronting issues that might make them a bit uncomfortable. This goes on all the time — as it should in a public square. But currently, the permitted speech is one sided, hence not free.You claim to understand how this society works, but you show little evidence of that. In my town (a pretty conservative one), the main public square regularly had loud and infamatory anti-Bush protests (Bush as Hitler, photos of bomb victims, etc.) for much of the Bush years. I am sure some of the local merchants weren't happy. But the police did not stop anyone as long as they stayed on the public square. That is how our society works. You have a right to try to make me uncomfortable, especially for a political reason.Finally, in the future, please try a little harder not to confuse someone's defense of free speech with your fevered imaginings that we must harbor dirty secret desires to say something offensive.—

          • thomas paine

            So how about you get behind a campus speech code that sanctions the use of the sexist f-word.

            as to this point, i am well aware that if i want to make a public speech of any kind in any place in this country, much less a university where teenagers are to be found, i am not allowed to use the F word, and if i insisted on it i would expect to be restricted from speaking

            perhaps you would like to review the difference between public and private speech and the conventions that we have about that here in the united states

          • fmobler

            Let's try again. You need visit a campus. No one stops anyone from swearing. I know faculty who use the f-word in class. Every year, our campus has a well-meaning display of tee shirts with inscriptions painted on by victims, mostly of sexual violence and harassment. I personally don't get it, but that's fine. My point is that every year since this started, one or two of the shirts will say something like “f you for what you did to me” (spelled out fully). This is not merely shouted in the moment. It is written and displayed in a prominent place on campus with the help and encouragement of our administration. Again, I don't get it, but I don't need to understand everyone else's choice of speech to think their rights are worth defending.Fact is, you are certainly allowed to use any language you want (unless it is sanctioned by a university speech code) on any college campus. No one will stop you. Plenty of people will stop wanting to hang out with you. But that's your problem.—

          • thomas paine

            Also, your little switcheroo of talking about "teenagers" at university and parading on private property (in front of a Safeway). University students are not children, public universities are not supermarkets.

            no, i am talking about parading on a PUBLIC sidewalk in front of safeway

            anyway, the only thing you seem interested in is the right to display pictures of aborted fetuses, on college campuses, anytime you want. and restricting college students from using the F word in private conversations, and teachers from talking as they please in their classrooms

            now, i seem to detect from your language that you would defend to the death the right of any PRIVATE institution to regulate speech on its premises in any manner it sees fit. am i correct? but, because a public university is partially publicly funded (the "public" university i went to was supplemented with state funds but somehow i had to pay tuition out of my own pocket as well) – because it's a public university you feel that it has no right to regulate speech on its premises in any way

            is that correct?

            if that is what you think, that's why i suggest that you review norms of public speech in american society

            once again, i don't believe that safeway would allow me to march up and down on the PUBLIC sidewalk in front of one of their stores every day with a picture of a freshly aborted fetus

            i think they would call the police and i would find myself in the station pdq getting lectured

            try it yourself and see if i am right

          • fmobler

            Where do you get these things? anyway, the only thing you seem interested in is the right to display pictures of aborted fetuses, on college campuses, anytime you want. and restricting college students from using the F word in private conversations, and teachers from talking as they please in their classrooms And:now, i seem to detect from your language that you would defend to the death the right of any PRIVATE institution to regulate speech on its premises in any manner it sees fit.That's some pretty good detective skills you've got there.l'll try to play the game the way you are playing it, by ad hominem attacks, non sequitur arguments and topic switching. Here goes.It is a shame your publicly subsidized education did not include basics of critical thinking. The only thing you seem interested in is doing is stopping me from doing stuff I don't plan on doing. Also, I detect from your writing that you hate kittens. When will you stop hating kittens?Nevermind. You win. I can't keep up with your rhetorical skills.Try looking up the funding of the public university you went to. That might be hard for you to do, but give it a try. You will discover that the money you paid was a small fraction of the cost. State universities are very expensive places to keep running. Students play a very small portion of the total cost.By the way, every serious political thinker I know of does think that public institutions have different obligations to free speech than do private ones. Maybe you missed that day in your tax payer subsidized GE Poli Sci course.—

          • thomas paine

            Fact is, you are certainly allowed to use any language you want (unless it is sanctioned by a university speech code) on any college campus

            try standing on a chair in the middle of campus, pulling out a bullhorn, and making a speech using the F word repeatedly and tell me what happens, OK?

            you don't seem to understand the difference between public and private conversations

          • thomas paine

            Fact is, you are certainly allowed to use any language you want (unless it is sanctioned by a university speech code) on any college campus

            try standing on a chair in the middle of campus, pulling out a bullhorn, and making a speech using the F word repeatedly and tell me what happens, OK?

            you don't seem to understand the difference between public and private conversations

          • thomas paine

            let me emphasize the main point: just because a university is public, that doesn't mean that it has no right to regulate what happens on its campus. freedom of speech, important political speech, doesn't mean that you have the right to say anything you want, anytime, anywhere – it means that you have the right to state your mind in a public venue without fear of arrest or reprisal

            secondly, the first response to my post was a long list of rights that "liberals' are supposedly repressing, yet you a focussed like a laser on wanting to be able to display pictures of aborted fetuses at any time and place you desire

            this can hardly be the wholesale repression that the first respondent had in mind

            since nobody has seen fit to substantiate the claims of that first response, it remains unproven

          • fmobler

            You wrote:try standing on a chair in the middle of campus, pulling out a bullhorn, and making a speech using the F word repeatedly and tell me what happens, OK? No need. There is a “speakers' corner” at UCLA where this goes on all the time. Pretty much weekly during the Bush years someone would indeed stand there are pepper his speech with the F word. No one stopped it. Actually, speakers do not need a bullhorn because the university has installed a PA system there.Maybe its the standing on a chair part you are worried about. Probably OSHA would stop me.—

          • fmobler

            You wrote:try standing on a chair in the middle of campus, pulling out a bullhorn, and making a speech using the F word repeatedly and tell me what happens, OK? No need. There is a “speakers' corner” at UCLA where this goes on all the time. Pretty much weekly during the Bush years someone would indeed stand there are pepper his speech with the F word. No one stopped it. Actually, speakers do not need a bullhorn because the university has installed a PA system there.Maybe its the standing on a chair part you are worried about. Probably OSHA would stop me.—

          • thomas paine

            look, mr mobler, i am attempting to figure out what your point is. when i made guesses about your point of view, i asked "am i correct?"

            if you want to continue discussing whether or not "liberals" are restricting your freedom of speech, please quit complaining about my rhetorical forays and please focus on some issues and answer questions….

          • fmobler

            Three things:[1] I have responded now several times with very concrete examples. I don't know what else you expect.[2] You have repeatedly resorted to ad hominem arguments. [You did it again in other other recent response]. I am under no obligation to validate that by answering your “Is that right?” nonsense. It isn't a complaint about your “rhetorical forays” [sic] to point out that I do not appreciate being colored with your unfounded biases. By the way, you might want to look up the word “foray.”[3] You asked for examples of liberals infringing rights. I gave you several. You stuck to one.[4] You plead in your other response: 'by all means, please elaborate and tell me what these “different obligations” are ' This is where I realize that you are wasting my time and yours. Read for yourself. But I will give you a hint. The Supreme Court has held in several cases that private owners of property (places like shopping malls) can severely limit political speech on their property in ways the government can't. That's why you won't ever see a political rally at a shopping mall, but you will see them in front of a city hall.Don't expect further responses from me. I have been assuming that you are a well-intended and reasonably educated citizen. Since you continue to try to bait me, the former is no longer an option. Since you are ignorant of really fundamental facts about the Bill of Rights. the second is out too. Good luck.—

          • thomas paine

            now, my main answer is that i think that freedom of speech does not mean that public institutions are not allowed to make rules. the only example of restrictions of freedom of speech that you seem willing to discuss involve restrictions on displaying pictures of aborted fetuses on campuses. at least, this is the only example you have ponied up. so, i fail to see why you object to me discussing it. please excuse me if it seems to me that you spend more time objecting to my questions than answering them

            however, you do say:

            every serious political thinker I know of does think that public institutions have different obligations to free speech than do private ones

            aha! an actual response. however, this is rather vague since you don't go any farther. by all means, please elaborate and tell me what these "different obligations" are

          • thomas paine

            Try looking up the funding of the public university you went to. That might be hard for you to do, but give it a try.

            not hard. it seems that the percentage of funding provided from tuition at state universities in my state is now at about 20%. what's your point?

  • Edward

    Excellent. At the usual very high level expected from anything David writes. Perhaps I'm biased because I live in California, but I see the Mexican illegals as a greater threat. The Progressives are setting up a nation within a nation ("sanctuary cities") and will be able to bleed "descamisados" in large numbers into the USA for the forseeable future. They will control the elections. In my opinion, the MB is a much greater threat in Europe.

  • Reason_For_Life

    Vouchers? Yes!
    Secret evidence? No!

    What idiot who would never trust the government with his childrens' education would trust the same government to use secret evidence?

    Before you support such an insane idea look at the present law and see just how much discretion prosecutors have when charging individuals with crimes. Threatening to shoot a neighbor's dog if it chases your child could considered a simple threat to destroy property or "making a terrorist threat". Guess which one will be used when the first requires evidence and the second doesn't. (What's the difference between secret evidence and no evidence? None that you are allowed to know about!)

    Do you really want someone like Eric Holder, who refuses to prosecute clear cases of voter intimidation, given the power to try people with evidence that no one will ever see?

  • thomas paine

    Reason_For_Life 108p · 48 minutes ago
    What rights? I tell you. The right of private property. The right to bear arms. The right to control your own medical treatment. The right to speak your mind The right to publish your ideas. The right of contract. The right of free association. The right to worship or not according to your beliefs. Every one of these rights is under assault from progressives.

    you have merely asserted this – made it up

    show examples from real life

    Every one of these rights is under assault from progressives

    this is merely an assertion without a shred of proof

    • Reason_For_Life

      The GM bailout violated the contractual rights of the bond holders. Cass Sunstein advocates forcing websites to publish contrary opinions. ObamaCare requires people selling gold to notify the feds of who buys it. There are proposals to limit the size of ammo clips and register long rifles (always, without exception done prior to confiscation).

      If you were anything other that a stupid troll you would know these things. This site is filled with documentation open for anyone with the ability to read.

      Your purpose is to get people to waste energy arguing with you. Your done here. Move on.

      • thomas paine

        pitiful

      • thomas paine

        your entire movement is a troll trying to blot out the face of true american values

        i make innovative products for private companies in one of america's most dynamic industries

        you just whine

  • Beth

    Can never be said enough – Thank you Mr. Horowitz! The work you're doing is so important (especially for my children's future). Thank You!

  • Beth

    Can never be said enough – Thank you Mr. Horowitz! The work you're doing is so important (especially for my children's future). Thank You!

  • VVV

    Interesting post. So, Conservatives and Libertarians have their skeletons in the closet regarding Political Islam just like some of their Liberal counterparts. As to the attacks on public education, these are ridiculous. This is just a phony excuse for the generational failure inner city schools. The same nonsense comes out of the mouths of the Obama administration hacks, such as Arne Duncan. Real reform will come when neighborhood violence, and parental difficulties are addressed, and teachers are allowed to teach in a non-disruptive classroom environment.

  • Piera Prister

    Thank you Mr. Horowitz, we admire your passion.
    We didn't know about the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in Holy Land Foundation fund raising, even though we live in Texas and we were aware that something wrong was going on, a few years ago. Ian Johnson writes in "A mosque in Munich" that Said Ramadan -Tariq's father and son in law of al-Banna, a political activist, a rabid antiSemitic and a Nazi, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood- was surprisingly received with a Muslim delegation, at the White House in the fifties by president Eisenhower who wanted to exploit his alliance against The Soviets. In Europe the Left loves Tariq Ramadan who was expelled from the US under president Bush because of his radical views but now he can teach and deliver speeches at the best American universities thanks to president Obama. This is really creepy, they are getting more and more powerful.

  • http://www.mydogspace.com/me/marcmanning820/blog/Techniques-For-Accomplishing-T-20111004 Wedding Speech Father of the Bride

    Great goods from you, man. I have take note your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely excellent. I really like what you’ve got here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which in which you are saying it. You make it entertaining and you continue to care for to stay it sensible. I can’t wait to read much more from you. That is really a wonderful web site.

  • http://www.windowskeyshop.net/ windows7 key

    Microsoft Windows came to dominate the world's personal computer market, overtaking Mac OS, which had been introduced in 1984. As of August 2011, Windows has approximately 82.58% of the market share of the client operating systems according to Usage share of operating systems.
    The most recent client version of Windows is Windows 7; the most recent server version is Windows Server 2008 R2; the most recent mobile version is Windows Phone 7.

  • http://www.kfzdiagnosegeraet.de/ Auto Diagnostic Tool

    The Divine inspiration never came to me, while I was under the blanket of any woman among you except Her

  • Temizlik

    I pray to God that people are listening…Thank You David! Temizlik

  • http://www.swanmarks.com/ Chinese Fashion

    Most Chinese wedding dresses may also be embroidered with golden decorations, and it's important to note that not just each and every tailor can function with golden Artka fabric.

  • http://www.whatmobile.com.pk/HTC_Mobiles_Prices gardnerlee

    well done job by the blogger, this is really informative, i have also shared to others, your analysis is very good and you have written everything in detail. Samsung mobiles

  • V. SINGH

    IN EVERY NON-MUSLIM COUNTERY THE SAME PROBLEM AND SAME THING, IN INDIA & EUROPE WE ALSO FACING SAME THING.

  • vpk

    "Muslim" nations have it worse. People have no rights and dare not speak. People are running away from my nation of Iran. We lost 10% of the population to people running away from Islam. Most Muslims do not practice the violence and are victims of it. I hope to one day live to see Islam gone from Iran. It was forced on us by Arabs 1400 years ago. It has been hell since then. Too bad the "Liberal" in the West do not realize the danger. We have to educate people on the danger of Islam.