<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; David Horowitz</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/david-horowitz/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:24:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>50 Years After &#8216;None Dare Call It Treason,&#8217; David Horowitz Rises to the Occasion</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/50-years-after-none-dare-call-it-treason-david-horowitz-rises-to-the-occasion/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=50-years-after-none-dare-call-it-treason-david-horowitz-rises-to-the-occasion</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/50-years-after-none-dare-call-it-treason-david-horowitz-rises-to-the-occasion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Spyridon Mitsotakis]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Book of the American Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[None Dare Call It Treason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Great Betrayal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=246380</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A veteran of the war against the Left exposes one of the Democrats' greatest betrayals of America. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/volume3cover1_1024x1024.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-246381" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/volume3cover1_1024x1024-238x350.jpg" alt="volume3cover1_1024x1024" width="226" height="332" /></a>Originally published by <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/">Breitbart.com</a>. </strong></p>
<p><strong>To order &#8220;The Great Betrayal,&#8221; Volume III of David Horowitz&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com">Black Book of the American Left</a>,&#8221; click <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-iii-the-great-betrayal">here</a>. </strong></p>
<p>Fifty years ago, in 1964, a Korean War veteran, electrical magazine editor, and self-taught expert on Communism named John Stormer published <em><a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.amazon.com/None-Dare-Call-It-Treason/dp/0899667252">None Dare Call it Treason</a></em>. It eventually sold 7 million copies.</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">The premise of the book was fairly simple: there are high-ranking people in America that are in fact the enemies of America and as a movement do everything in their power to sabotage our battle against totalitarianism. Yet, nobody is willing to identify these people for what they are: Traitors. And no one will call what these traitors are doing for what it is: <em>Treason</em>.</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">That is no longer true, thanks to David Horowitz and his new book <em><a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/volume-iii/">The Great Betrayal</a></em>, Volume III of <em>The Black Book of the American Left</em>. “Treason as a moral rather than a legal issue is not difficult to define,” he writes. “Treason is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win.”</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">In an article written and posted on September 11, 2001, Horowitz threw down the gauntlet:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="color: #111111;">
<p style="font-style: inherit;">Americans are unwilling to recognize that much of the world hates us, and will continue to hate us because we are prosperous, democratic and free. Today&#8217;s tragedies must be a wake up call.  It&#8217;s time to remember that the first duty of government is to provide for the common defense. …</p>
<p style="font-style: inherit;">It&#8217;s time for those on the political left to rethink their alliances with anti-American radicals at home and abroad.  It&#8217;s time for the President to identify the monsters who planned the day of infamy, and then to carry out a massive military strike against them and any government who sponsored these acts. In sum, it is time for a new sobriety in America about what is at stake in the political battles with those who condemn America as an ‘oppressor’ nation and the ‘root cause’ of the attacks on itself.  It is time for Americans who love this country to stand up in her defense.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color: #111111;">The attitude he was referring to came into clear view a few weeks later, on November 7, 2001, when Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University that, Horowitz writes, “ranks as one of the most disgraceful utterances to pass the lips of a former American president. Without any acknowledgment of his own responsibilities as commander-in-chief, Clinton joined America’s enemies in attempting to transfer the blame for the atrocities to his country. ‘Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless,’ he explained, reflecting sentiments made familiar by American appeasers since the [Communist-controlled Henry] Wallace campaign of 1948.”</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">The view that America is the bad guy of the world is what drove the radical Left (including Clinton and the majority of the Democrats) to dismantle America’s military and intelligence defenses in the pre-9/11 era.</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">In light of these unprecedented attacks, did the Democrats rise to the challenge? Of course not. They pretended to be hawkish patriots for two years – including voting to destroy the enemy regime of Saddam Hussein which we now know did, in fact, <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/carter-andress/why-the-world-did-not-know-about-wmd-in-iraq/">have Weapons of Mass Destruction</a> and <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/212562/connected/andrew-c-mccarthy">connections to Al Qaeda</a> – but, as Horowitz recounts:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="color: #111111;">
<p style="font-style: inherit;">The global protesters failed to stop the British and American military effort or save Saddam’s regime, which fell six weeks after the initial assault. This victory put an end to the filling of mass graves by the regime; it shut down the torture chambers and closed the prison that Saddam had built for four to twelve-year-olds whose parents had earned his disapproval. But Saddam’s forces were not entirely defeated. They regrouped to fight a rearguard guerilla campaign against the American “occupiers.” At the same time, the organizers of the anti-war protests continued their efforts, this time in the arena of electoral politics. Their activists marched into the Democratic presidential primary campaigns to support the candidacies of anti-war Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean.</p>
<p style="font-style: inherit;">The enormous resources in money and manpower that the activists mobilized against the war transformed the campaign of an obscure governor of Vermont into the Democratic frontrunner. Dean condemned America’s war in Iraq; he hinted that as president he would make peace at the earliest possible opportunity and withdraw American forces from the Gulf. Electoral politics thus became the left’s rearguard attempt to produce the result their pre-war protests had failed to achieve: an American defeat in Iraq.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color: #111111;">Thus it began, in June of 2003, that the Democrats realized that their false patriotism endangered their standing with the America-hating base of the Democratic Party and (with the notable exceptions of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt) turned on the war nearly all of them voted for. Without hesitating, they stabbed the troops they sent into battle in the back. “You can’t tell a 19-year old, who is risking his young life in Fallujah and is surrounded by terrorists who want to kill him, that he shouldn’t be there in the first place; that he’s with the ‘bad guys,’ the aggressors, the occupiers who have no moral right to be in Iraq,” Horowitz wrote in 2008. “You can’t do that and not threaten his morale, encourage his enemies, deprive him of allies and put him in danger. And that is exactly what the Democrats have done – and all the Democrats have done – for five years of America’s war to deny the terrorists victory in Iraq.”</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">The defining moment that proved whose side the Democrats were on came in 2007, when President Bush, recognizing the <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/blind-liberation">errors</a> made, shifted to a Counterinsurgency plan referred to as “The Surge.&#8221; The plan was a <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443916104578020642839807834">dramatic success</a>, accomplishing its twin goals of breaking the back of the various Islamist insurrections and creating an unprecedented atmosphere of security for the Iraqi people. But the Democrats were <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222129/after-hill-surge/peter-wehner">desperate to undermine our military</a>, shown most infamously when General David Petraeus was preparing to testify to Congress on the progress made. A Democratic Senator told <em>Politico</em>, “No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV… the expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.” And within a few days, the Democrats’ activist arm, MoveOn.org, published a full-page advertisement in the <em>New York Times</em> under the blaring headline: “General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.” In fact, the <em>Times</em> gave MoveOn.org a <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://nypost.com/2007/09/13/times-gives-lefties-a-hefty-discount-for-betray-us-ad/">64% discount</a> to run the smear. The Democrats knew what they were saying wasn’t true. We now know this thanks to Robert Gates in his memoir <em><a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/0307959473">Duty</a></em>. In a meeting between Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and other administration officials on October 26, 2009, “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. She went on to say, ‘The Iraq surge worked.’ The President conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">Our troops triumphed regardless, so that once Obama came to power, he needed a way to undo these achievements without making it obvious. He did so by sabotaging the Status of Forces negotiations, <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/11/iraqi_politicians_backed_into.php">orchestrating</a> parliamentary obstacles where there previously had been none. As the great Fouad Ajami <a style="color: #0088bb;" href="http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-men-who-sealed-iraqs-disaster-with.html">wrote</a> in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> before his untimely passing, “Obama&#8217;s rush for the exit and [then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al] Maliki&#8217;s autocratic rule ensured that much hard-won progress would not last.” America’s security position is the worst it has been in generations, and the bloodbath we see today is the fruit of the Democrats’ betrayal.</p>
<p style="color: #111111;">Fifty years ago, John Stormer wrote:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="color: #111111;">
<p style="font-style: inherit;">There is much to be done if America is to block communist domination of the world. Much of the work is up to <em>you</em>. First, you must educate yourself. Determine that the facts in this book are true. Then, alert and educate others. Stay informed – and start to act. Join with others who are already well-organized for the battle against communism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color: #111111;">In a slightly different form, these words could have fit nicely in <em>The Great Betrayal</em>. Horowitz is a veteran of the ideological wars against both the Communists and the Jihad. He knows what he’s talking about.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/50-years-after-none-dare-call-it-treason-david-horowitz-rises-to-the-occasion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Point in Time</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/danusha-v-goska/a-point-in-time-4/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-point-in-time-4</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/danusha-v-goska/a-point-in-time-4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2014 05:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Danusha V. Goska]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[a point in time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dostoevsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[redemption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz's search for redemption in this life and the next.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pint.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-245829" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pint.jpg" alt="pint" width="225" height="346" /></a><strong>[To order <em>A Point in Time</em>, <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/newleviathan-signed">click here</a>.]</strong></p>
<p>Reading David Horowitz&#8217;s &#8220;A Point in Time: The Search for Redemption in this Life and the Next&#8221; is like taking an autumn stroll with a gray-haired elder encountered at a family reunion. You were expecting his usual social, political, and economic rants that sometimes alienated you, and sometimes frightened you. Sometimes you saw some shaft of insight in his words, an insight you defiantly resisted because his worldview was so different from your own. You see the world through rose-colored glasses of universal brotherhood and a brighter tomorrow. This guy insistently reminded you of failed utopias.</p>
<p>Before you set out on your stroll, though, he made sure to bring his three pooches along. The tenderness he showed the dogs gives you pause. You realized that as different as you are in age and worldview, you both love dogs.</p>
<p>As you step out into the gray light, suddenly crepuscular so early in the afternoon, the elder speaks. You&#8217;re accustomed to clipped who-what-when-where-why-style headlines. Today the rhythm and care of poetry shimmers just under the surface of his prose.</p>
<p>He&#8217;s talking about death. Well, yes, that would make sense; he is a septuagenarian. He has had a cancer scare and one of his children has pre-deceased him.</p>
<p>You slow your steps and listen. His words seem, like the moldering leaves, fading light, and the migrating geese overhead, to be arising organically out of the autumnal scene. You&#8217;ll be pondering what you hear today for a long time.</p>
<p>&#8220;A Point in Time&#8221; is a meditation on death and mortality, morality, religious faith, and the Utopian urge. Horowitz uses Marcus Aurelius&#8217; and Fyodor Dostoyevsky&#8217;s works as touchstones.</p>
<p>Horowitz&#8217;s parents had been members of the American Communist Party. Horowitz himself was close to the Black Panthers. In 1974 their bookkeeper, Betty Van Patter, was murdered. Horowitz was convinced that the Panthers were responsible. In 1985, Horowitz publicly broke with the left. My former comrades spoke of Horowitz as if he were the devil incarnate.</p>
<p>I went to heckle Horowitz ten years ago. He said something that silenced me, and that I pondered repeatedly: Camden, Newark, and Paterson have had Democratic leadership for decades. I grew up among people who vividly remember Newark and Paterson as thriving, even enviable cities. That they are now slums breaks many New Jerseyians hearts. Horowitz&#8217;s comment was a significant paving stone in my own turn away from the left.</p>
<p>Even so I did not expect a book like &#8220;A Point in Time&#8221; from Horowitz. It is meditative, serene, and stoic. It is not a Christian book, but it treats Christianity and its impact with respect.</p>
<p>Horowitz talks about death using dogs, pet ownership, homes, and writing. Dogs live for about a decade, much shorter than the average human lifespan. We must watch our beloved four-footed friends age and die at a more rapid rate than our own. Homes are our carapace. We experience them almost as extensions of ourselves, renovating them with a sense that our lives might go on forever. Moving into, and then out of a home, also reminds us of mortality.</p>
<p>Horowitz&#8217;s daughter Sarah was a writer who never married. She died relatively young, and having published relatively little. Horowitz contemplates her one bedroom apartment, and her writings, her most significant material legacy. Medical diagnoses, too, remind us of mortality. If we go on living long enough, eventually we will get cancer, or diabetes, or something. We will fight the illness as long as we can. We lose the fight in increments, as Horowitz has in the amount of walking he can do before fatigue reels him back home.</p>
<p>We turn to bookcases. Marcus Aurelius provides a stoic model; Dostoyevsky a Christian one. Horowitz&#8217;s selection of quotes from Dostoyevsky convinces me that I need to read more of him, or at least about him. The quotes Horowitz selects are stunningly apropos to American college campuses today. Horowitz positions Dostoyevsky as the antidote to atheist nihilists and Utopians.</p>
<p>Horowitz considers faith, but acknowledges that he is an agnostic. He briefly describes a few unspeakable crimes from current headlines. With a few spare sentences, he describes the kind of sadism that occurs every day. How do we believe in God in a world in which not just children, but even dogs, are subject to cruel and meaningless tortures? If God is omnipotent, how do we avoid assigning responsibility to God for horrible events?</p>
<p>Rejection of God has been for many a sort of religion of its own. Horowitz&#8217;s father did not believe in God, but he did have a myth and a telos. &#8220;When he read his morning paper it was not to gather tidings of events that actually affected him – prices rising, weather brewing, wars approaching – but to parse the script of a global drama that would one day bring history and its miseries to an end.&#8221;</p>
<p>Similarly, Dostoyevsky&#8217;s fellow conspirator Nikolay Speshnev said that his political hope &#8220;is also a religion only a different one. It makes a divinity out of a new and different object, but there is nothing new about the deification itself.&#8221; The difference between Dostoyevsky and men like Speshnev is acted out on college campuses in America every day, and on the international stage. Dostoyevsky describes how radicals justify &#8220;wading through blood.&#8221; One need only look to the former cradle of civilization to find examples.</p>
<p>The book&#8217;s intimacy is typified by a lovely passage on page 22. Horowitz lays awake at night, &#8220;haunted by reflections of death.&#8221; Kissing his wife, or petting &#8220;the small bodies curled like furry slippers at my feet&#8221; provides him with a reprieve from &#8220;this emptiness.&#8221;</p>
<p>The book&#8217;s cover by Bosch Fawstin depicts the scene at Dostoyevsky&#8217;s mock execution by czarist police: three erect stakes. I cannot help but think of the anachronistic reference to Christ – &#8220;three pale figures led forth and bound to three posts driven upright in the ground&#8221; – in W.H. Auden&#8217;s poem &#8220;Shield of Achilles.&#8221; Horowitz&#8217;s book, like Auden&#8217;s poem, like Marcus Aurelius, recognizes that each generation must confront, struggle with, and then lose, &#8220;The mass and majesty of this world, all that carries weight and always weighs the same,&#8221; whether we live under the House of Atreus, or the Pax Romana, or the reign of Obama.</p>
<p>Death gave us this David Horowitz. If mortality were not knocking on his door, I don&#8217;t think he would have written this book; if it were not knocking on ours, however faint the sound, we could not resonate to it. Death &#8220;focuses the mind&#8221; and awakens the heart. The myth of, or perhaps the evidence for, immortality gives us the determination to apply death&#8217;s lessons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/danusha-v-goska/a-point-in-time-4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Great Betrayal: Vol. Three of the Black Book of the American Left</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-great-betrayal-vol-three-of-the-black-book-of-the-american-left/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-great-betrayal-vol-three-of-the-black-book-of-the-american-left</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-great-betrayal-vol-three-of-the-black-book-of-the-american-left/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Book of Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Great Betrayal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Democrats' treachery in the War on Terror.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gb1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-245238" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gb1-238x350.jpg" alt="gb" width="179" height="263" /></a><b>Below is David Horowitz&#8217;s introduction to his new book,</b> <b><i>&#8220;The Black Book of the American Left, Volume III: The Great Betrayal.&#8221; </i>(Order <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-iii-the-great-betrayal" target="_blank">here</a>.) We encourage our readers to visit <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/" target="_blank">BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com</a><wbr /> – which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.</b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-iii-the-great-betrayal"><em>The Great Betrayal</em></a> is the third volume of my collected writings that make up <em>The Black Book of the American Left</em>. Its chapters focus on events beginning with the Islamic attacks of 9/11 and culminating in the Iraq War. They describe what can now be seen as a tragic turn in our nation’s history that has already profoundly and adversely affected its future.</p>
<p>The effort to remove the Saddam regime in Iraq by force was initially supported by both major political parties. But in only the third month of fighting the Democratic Party turned against the war it had authorized for reasons unrelated to events on the battle- field or changes in policy. This political division over the war fractured the home front with crippling implications for the war effort itself and, beyond that, America’s efforts to curtail the terrorist activities of other regimes in the Middle East, most pointedly Syria and Iran. The internal divisions were greater than any the nation had experienced since the Civil War, and the betrayal by the Democrats of a war policy they had supported was without precedent in the history of America’s wars overseas.</p>
<p>The internal divisions at the end of the Vietnam War were not at all commensurate with those over Iraq. The 1972 McGovern presidential campaign, which called for an American retreat from Vietnam, was launched after ten years of fighting with no result, when both parties had already conceded the war could not be won. The conflict between the two major parties was over how to end the war and over what the war had become, not—as in Iraq—over whether the war was illegal and immoral to begin with and should never have been fought. The Democrats’ opposition to a war they had authorized, represented a betrayal of the nation and its men and women in arms that has no equivalent in American history.</p>
<p>The domestic divisions over both wars were initiated by a radical left whose agendas went far beyond the conflicts themselves. In the decades that followed their efforts to bring the Vietnam War to an ignoble end, the left had made ever deeper inroads into the Democratic Party until, in 2008, the party nominated a senator from its anti-war ranks who became the 44th president of the United States.1 Of far greater significance than the successful candidacy of one anti-war spokesman, however, was the path the entire Democratic Party took in first abandoning a war its leaders had approved, and then conducting a five-year campaign against the war while it was still in progress.</p>
<p>I have written two previous books about this defection and its destructive consequences. The first, Unholy Alliance (2004), documented the emergence of the post-9/11 anti-war movement, its tacit alliance with the jihadist enemy and its malign influence on the Democratic Party’s fateful turn.2 The second, Party of Defeat (2008), was written with Ben Johnson and focused on the sabotage of the war effort by leaders of the Democratic Party, by progressive activists and by a left-leaning national media. This chorus of opposition took advantage of American missteps to conduct a no-holds- barred propaganda campaign worthy of an enemy, even going so far as to leak classified information that destroyed vital national security programs and put all Americans at risk.3 Political opponents of the war attacked the moral character of the commander-in-chief and the mission both parties had endorsed. This assault on America’s role in the war dealt a devastating blow to American power and influence from which they have yet to recover.</p>
<p>It is customary and natural for human beings to identify with the communities they inhabit, and on whose health and security their lives depend. This is the foundation of all patriotic sentiment. But once individuals become possessed by the idea that political power can be “transformative” and create a fundamentally different human environment, they develop an allegiance to the idea itself and to the parties and entities in which they see it embodied. Such individuals come to feel alienated from the societies they live in but are determined to replace, and finally to see their own country as an enemy because it is the enemy of their progressive dreams. This is how generations of leftists came to identify with the Communist adversary and its cold war against the democracies of the West.</p>
<p>When the Communist empire collapsed, I was curious to see whether this progressive reflex would survive the fall. Lacking the real world instantiation of their dreams Soviet Russia had provided, would progressives continue to volunteer as frontier guards for America’s enemies, even the most reprehensible among them?4 The answer was not long in coming.</p>
<p>On November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall came down, liberating hundreds of millions of captive people from their Soviet prison. The following August, Iraq’s sadistic dictator ordered his armies into Kuwait and erased that sovereign nation from the political map. Unlike the Soviet rulers who paid lip service to progressive ideals, Saddam Hussein was a self-identified fascist who did not pretend to advance the cause of “social justice” or liberal values. Even by 20th-century standards, Saddam was an exceptionally cruel and bloody tyrant. But he was also an enemy of the United States, and that proved enough to persuade progressives to lend him a helping hand. When America organized an international coalition to reverse Iraq’s aggression, the progressive left opposed the action as though America rather than the Saddam regime were at fault.</p>
<p>At the time, the only reason there were no large protests against the war over Kuwait was because progressives were freshly demoralized by the Soviet debacle and still in disarray. But their mood changed over the course of the next decade. As the millennium approached, leftists began to regroup, organizing a series of large and violent demonstrations against “globalization,” the term with which they re-labeled their old nemesis “international capitalism.” When Islamic fanatics attacked New York and Washington in 2001, leaders of the globalization protests repositioned their agendas to focus on the new American “imperialism” in Afghanistan and then Iraq. Eventually, millions of leftists at home and abroad participated in protests to prevent America and the coalition it led from removing Saddam Hussein. Without overtly supporting the Saddam regime as they had the Kremlin, progressives resumed their role as frontier guards for the enemies of the United States.5</p>
<p>The chapters of <em>The Great Betrayal</em> consist of articles that were written as the post-9/11 events were unfolding. Because they were written as the events were taking place, the individual chapters are best read in sequence, and are arranged in chronological order for that purpose. I have edited the selections to clean up infelicities that are the price one pays for working on deadlines and in the heat of battle. Some repetitive passages have been excised, while some new passages have been inserted to clarify the historical context for readers coming at these issues for the first time. In making these texts more readable I have refrained from inserting views of the events that I did not hold or express at the time.</p>
<p><strong>Notes: </strong></p>
<p>1. Barack Obama’s long-standing roots in the radical left are documented in Stanley Kurtz, Radical-in-Chief, Threshold, 2010.</p>
<p>2. Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, Regnery, 2004.</p>
<p>3. <i>Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America’s War on Terror Before and After 9/11 </i>(with Ben Johnson), Spence, 2008.</p>
<p>4. See the introduction to Volume II in this series for the origins of the term “frontier guards” to describe the behaviors of the international left.</p>
<p>5. These developments are described and analyzed in Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, Regnery, 2004.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-great-betrayal-vol-three-of-the-black-book-of-the-american-left/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Democrats’ Great Betrayal</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-democrats-great-betrayal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-democrats-great-betrayal</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-democrats-great-betrayal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Great Betrayal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An unprecedented treachery for which the world is paying a dear price.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gb.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244968" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gb-238x350.jpg" alt="gb" width="199" height="293" /></a><strong>[To order<em> &#8220;The Black Book of the American Left, Volume III: The Great Betrayal,&#8221;</em> <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-iii-the-great-betrayal">click here</a>. We encourage our readers to visit <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com</a> – which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.]</strong></p>
<p>Yesterday Regnery published <em>The Great Betrayal</em>, a book I have written to mark a watershed moment not only in the War on Terror, which is really a war against the Islamic Jihad, but a watershed moment in American history. The events and controversies chronicled in <em>The Great Betrayal</em> describe an unprecedented defection by a major political party from an American war in progress, and a five- year effort by that party to sabotage the war and undermine America’s troops in the field.</p>
<p>The Democrats’ campaign against the war in Iraq was very different from their opposition to the war in Vietnam, which came after American troops had been in the field for more than a decade and both parties had agreed on a withdrawal. In contrast, the watershed moment in Iraq came in June 2003, when the war was little more than three months old and American troops were facing a ferocious resistance from terrorist forces. In that month the Democratic Party ran a national TV ad accusing Bush of lying about Saddam’s determination to build weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>The focus of the Democrats’ attack was sixteen words in Bush’s State of the Union Address in which he referred to a British report that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger. The statement was true, but a massive campaign in the leftwing media along with the Democrats’ imputation that Bush had lied about the rationale for the war began a five-year effort to slander America’s commander-in-chief and condemn the war in Iraq as illegal, immoral and unnecessary. The consequences of these attacks can be seen in the emergence of ISIS in the vacuum created by the Democrat-led withdrawal from the region, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the creation of 18 million refugees in six-year tenure of the “anti-war” president, Barack Obama.</p>
<p>Why did the Democrats turn against a war they had authorized and why did they accuse Bush of deceiving the American people (“Bush lied, people died”)? Not because of anything that had taken place on the battlefield in Iraq. The Democrats turned against the war because an anti-war activist named Howard Dean was set to win the Democratic presidential primary &#8211; which happened to coincide with the invasion &#8211; by a wide margin. It was Dean’s surge in the polls that caused John Kerry and John Edwards who eventually became the Democratic standard bearers to do an about face, repudiate their previous support of the war, and turn on the president as the chief culprit in the conflict rather than the sadistic tyrant Saddam Hussein. The Democrats even lied about the rationale for the war which was not the existence of weapons of mass destruction but Saddam’s violation of the Gulf War truce and 17 UN Resolutions designed to<em> prevent</em> him from building weapons of mass destruction.</p>
<p>Why did the Democrats claim – falsely &#8211; that Bush lied about the reasons for the war? Because the Democrats could not admit that they were turning against a war they themselves had authorized for partisan political gain, undoubtedly the most shameful act by a major political party in the nation’s history.</p>
<p>The Democrats went on to conduct a five-year scorched earth campaign against America’s war in Iraq, which was in effect the central front of the war on terror, as the creation of an Islamic terrorist state has since shown. Democrats did not merely oppose the war but slandered the president as a liar and war criminal, defended the leaks of national security programs (which led to their destruction), converted a minor incident in the Abu Ghraib prison into an international scandal which was then used to defame their country and demoralize its troops, and actively sought to defund the war effort in Congress and force an American defeat. They eventually succeeded in this effort by nominating a leftwing anti-war activist who upon reaching the White House proceeded to make America’s defeat in Iraq a <em>fait accompli</em>, thus creating the vacuum that ISIS has filled.</p>
<p>Did Bush lie about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction as the Democrats claimed? The discovery by ISIS of 2200 rockets filled with Sarin that Saddam had buried explodes this myth, which has been wielded for over a decade by America’s enemies and detractors to undermine the war on terror. Could Bush have lied about the intelligence on Iraq? Hardly. Democrats like John Kerry sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of information that Bush did.</p>
<p>It was Kerry and his running mate Edwards who lied, and the entire Democratic Party leadership along with them. And it’s in Syria and the Levant, Afghanistan and Iraq that our country is now paying the price for this treachery and deceit. And soon, if our military leaders have assessed the threat correctly, we will be paying for their treachery here at home.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-democrats-great-betrayal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats Join The Ferguson Lynch Mob As The Case Against Officer Wilson Collapses</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/democrats-join-the-ferguson-lynch-mob-as-the-case-against-officer-wilson-collapses/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=democrats-join-the-ferguson-lynch-mob-as-the-case-against-officer-wilson-collapses</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/democrats-join-the-ferguson-lynch-mob-as-the-case-against-officer-wilson-collapses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[black votes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ferguson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243808</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An autopsy report shatters a leftist lie designed to pocket black votes.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fergusonprotests.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243809" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fergusonprotests-450x192.jpg" alt="Religious leaders hold up their hands as the riot police move in during a protest at the Ferguson Police Department in Ferguson" width="291" height="124" /></a><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://dailycaller.com/">DailyCaller.com.</a></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">Everyone who hasn’t drunk the progressive Kool-Aid is aware that during elections Democrats resort to the race card to scare African Americans, for whose intelligence they have limitless contempt, into voting for them. If Republicans are elected, their propaganda claims, “black churches will burn” or the racial clock will be turned back to the era of segregation, an era that Democrats happen to have been directly responsible for.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This year it’s the mythical threat white policeman allegedly pose to black youth, as Democrats and their media enablers encourage a “lynch mob” mentality — as Howard Kurtz <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-kelly-kurtz-accuse-huffpost-sharpton-of-lynch-mob-mentality-on-ferguson/">put it</a> recently — in a desperate attempt to pocket black votes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">A flyer distributed by the Georgia Democratic Party (Ferguson is in Missouri) warns:</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="ltr">“On August 9, 2014, an unarmed 18-year old African-American named Michael Brown was fatally shot six times and killed by a white police officer, his body left in a pool of blood for four hours. Ferguson Missouri’s population is 67% African-American. But the city’s mayor, 5 of its 6 city council members, and 94% of its police force are white. What are we going to do about it? If we want a better, safer future for our children, it’s up to us to vote for change.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="ltr">Note first that this flyer was distributed in Georgia, not Missouri. In other words, according to Democrats: Republicans everywhere are racists. Moreover, if 67 percent of Ferguson citizens are black and they elect a white mayor and city council members shouldn’t that be applauded as a sign that they are committed to America’s inclusive ideal, and are not voting along racial lines? Wouldn’t Democrats be saying that if white majority populations were voting for blacks (as they in fact do)? Once again the claim that this reflects white racism is itself a racist claim, one that is typical of self-hating progressive whites.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The flyer’s timing couldn’t have been worse. The just released autopsy report shows that Michael Brown was only unarmed because he failed to wrestle Officer Darren Wilson’s gun from his holster, when he attacked Officer Wilson in his police car. How many innocent citizens attack a policeman in his police car and attempt to grab his gun from him?</p>
<p dir="ltr">According to the very liberal <em>St. Louis Post Dispatch,</em> “A source familiar with Wilson’s version of events, as told to investigators, said the ‘incredibly strong’ teen punched Wilson and then pressed the barrel of the cop’s gun against the officer’s hip and fought for control of the trigger.” You think the officer might have been in fear for his life after that?</p>
<p dir="ltr">The autopsy report further shows that Michael Brown’s hands were not in the air in a posture of surrender when he was shot – as the Ferguson lynch mob claims — but that the 6’4” 292lb individual was advancing on the much smaller officer, less than twenty feet away. In other words, the autopsy report supports Officer Wilson’s claims that there was a violent struggle and that he shot Wilson first with the intent to warn him to stop and finally – when he failed to do so — to stop him.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/democrats-join-the-ferguson-lynch-mob-as-the-case-against-officer-wilson-collapses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>243</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Nice Guys Finish Last in Politics</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/why-nice-guys-finish-last-in-politics/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-nice-guys-finish-last-in-politics</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/why-nice-guys-finish-last-in-politics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 04:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Politics is war, but some Republicans just don’t get it.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="page-title-container">
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-240392" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb-227x350.jpg" alt="bb" width="227" height="350" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, <em>Take No Prisoners</em>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/">Washington Times</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Republicans are going to dominate the midterm elections, but it would be a foolish gamble to count on them to win the 2016 presidential contest. Why is that? Democrats are now a party of the left (no more John Kennedys, no more Joe Liebermans). That means they are driven by ideology and not the pragmatic outlook that used to be the two-party norm.</p>
<p>Ideology soon disconnects you from reality, which is why Democrats will lose in November — that&#8217;s the downswing. During the upswing, though, ideological passion provides a sense of mission and hope that can win over gullible majorities.</p>
<p>In 2008, when Barack Obama promised to turn back the tides and fundamentally transform America, he took enough of the American people with him to become the 44th president of the United States. It was a baseless, deceptive, empty-headed hope that made him seem the answer to so many unfounded prayers. Mr. Obama was a lifelong anti-American radical and a world-class liar. He was not going to lead Americans into a post-racial bipartisan future as he promised. It has taken years for a majority of the American people to realize that.</p>
<p>Republicans will win the midterms because six years of radical policies have brought this country low — the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression; the worst unemployment and greatest expansion of people on the dole; an ongoing disaster to the health care system; the destruction of America&#8217;s borders; and a global power vacuum deliberately created by a leftist commander in chief, which has been filled by the greatest threat to American security since the onset of the Cold War.</p>
<p>Accordingly, in this election cycle the American people are fed up, and they&#8217;re going to turn out the party responsible. That is just this round, though, and there are two years until the next one — a lifetime, politically speaking. Mr. Obama is not an aberration, but a culmination of what has been happening to the Democratic Party during the last four decades. If Mr. Obama is prepared to lie to conceal his real agenda, so is the leadership of the Democratic Party. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a longtime advocate for America&#8217;s retreat, has suddenly emerged as a hawk on the Islamic State, as has Hillary Clinton, who presided over America&#8217;s catastrophic retreat. While Mr. Obama struggles to make the two sides of his mouth look like one, both Ms. Warren and Mrs. Clinton rush to disassociate themselves from his cowardly retreats. You can expect the Democrats to reposition themselves on many other fronts as well.</p>
<p>Going into the 2016 election, you can count on Republicans to stay &#8220;positive,&#8221; to emphasize policy, and above all, not to hit the Democrats where it hurts. You can also count on Democrats to do just the opposite. Because they always do.</p>
<p>Mike Tyson once said, &#8220;Everyone has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth.&#8221; Democrats have a massive punch in the mouth for Republicans, and it&#8217;s always the same punch. Republicans are painted as racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-poor people, selfish and uncaring. Note that this is a moral indictment. It defames the character of Republicans like the corporate predator and dog-abuser Mitt Romney.</p>
<p>The only answer to an attack like this is to attack Democrats with an equally potent indictment of their moral character. For example, Democrats are actually the party of racists — supporters of the lynch mob in Ferguson, Mo.; controllers of America&#8217;s inner cities; enemies of poor black and Hispanic children trapped in the public schools they control; and so forth. No Republican to my knowledge has ever called Democrats racists, yet the latter send their own kids to private schools while denying children who are poor, black and Hispanic the right to do so. How racist is that? Al Sharpton is the president&#8217;s chief adviser on race. Republicans will never lay a glove on him for these obscenities.</p>
<p>I have just published a book, &#8220;Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left,&#8221; using these principles. I&#8217;m not holding my breath that any Republicans will listen, though. They are too intent on telling positive &#8220;stories,&#8221; proposing workable policies and pretending that people will give them a fair hearing despite the fact that their opposition is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to portray them as racists, women haters and enemies of the poor. How difficult is it to understand this: If you are perceived by voters as racist or even just selfish and uncaring, they are not going to have the same interest in your policy advice, as Mr. Romney found out in 2012.</p>
<p>Here is what Republicans need to understand to win: Politics is a street war, and there are no referees to maintain the rules — and the ones that infrequently pop up (such as CNN&#8217;s Candy Crowley during one of the last presidential debates) are there to bury you. Attack your opponents before they attack you. Attack them with a moral indictment; if well-executed, it will win the day.</p>
<p>And remember that even if you fail to do this to them, they will certainly do it to you. You can count on that.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/why-nice-guys-finish-last-in-politics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>62</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The GOP’s Missing Electoral Link </title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-gops-missing-electoral-link%e2%80%a8/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-gops-missing-electoral-link%25e2%2580%25a8</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-gops-missing-electoral-link%e2%80%a8/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 04:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral indictments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=240566</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The crucial importance of framing moral indictments.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-240392" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb-227x350.jpg" alt="bb" width="227" height="350" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, <em>Take No Prisoners</em>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>This article is reprinted from <a href="http://www.redstate.com/">Redstate.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Paul Ryan is a smart man, and probably represents the mainstream thinking of the Republican Party, though like every ambitious politician he likes to position himself as a critic of the crowd. But in a recent interview with Matthew Continetti, Ryan started out well by complaining about the GOP consultant class. “The consultant class always says play it safe, choose a risk-averse strategy. I don’t think we have the luxury of doing that.” But then when called on to provide a non-risk averse strategy, he comes up with this: “We need to treat people like adults by offering them alternatives.” But what Republican consultant would tell his candidate <em>not</em> to offer alternative policies and ideas? There is none.</p>
<p>Every Republican thinks that offering a positive vision and new policies is the key to winning elections. Of course sometimes, as in the midterms this fall, the Democrats have screwed up so big that they are practically handing Republicans a victory. Just don’t count on it for 2016. In fact, Ryan embraces the conventional GOP wisdom:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The only way we beat an Obama third term is to offer a spirited alternative and bring it up to a crescendo where we’re really giving the country a very clear choice of policies and ideas.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>I wouldn’t bet on it. You can’t give the country a clear choice of policies and ideas when the Democrats are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to label you racists, sexists, homophobes enemies of the poor, selfish and uncaring. If Republicans are to win national elections they have to come up with an answer to these attacks. And the only answer is a counter-attack. I’ve laid out the basis for an effective counter-attack in my new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners"><em>Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating the Left</em></a> (Regnery 2014). But I’m not holding my breath that Republicans will embrace the strategy I recommend. More likely they will go into the next national election like crash-dummies as they usually do.</p>
<p>When you examine the Democrat attacks they are all <em>moral</em> indictments: racist, uncaring, anti-woman, selfish. In contrast, Republicans criticize Democrats for having unworkable policies. Who do you think is going to win this debate? If a voter thinks someone is a racist, how seriously are they going to take his policy ideas? The same reaction awaits candidates who are seen as selfish defenders of the greedy rich, namely, Republicans.</p>
<p>What’s the Republican counter-attack? There is none. But here’s how to think of one: Democrat policies are not merely wrong-headed, they’re destructive. Democrats control every major city in America – Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee – and I could go on and on. They’ve controlled these cities for 50 to 100 years. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America, every policy that adversely affects the impoverished minorities who live there, Democrats are responsible for.</p>
<p>Democrat policies, for example, have trapped millions of poor African American and Hispanic children in schools that don’t teach them, year in and year out, because they’re run for the benefit of the leftwing teacher unions and the Democratic Party. Democrats will fight to the death to keep these children from getting scholarships known as “vouchers” that would allow them to find private schools that would teach them. Yet Democrats, including the president himself, send their own children to private schools. How racist is that? Yet when did you ever hear a Republican call a Democrat a racist over this atrocity?</p>
<p>Consider the consequences of Democratic misrule: millions of poor African American and Hispanic children who will never be educated and never get a shot at the American dream. Instead they will be condemned to lives of poverty and crime. The Democratic colony of Chicago is a war zone. Who is responsible for all the lost young African American lives in Chicago? But Republicans are too polite to mention it.</p>
<p>In Ferguson, Missouri we have witnessed the month long spectacle of a Democratic lynch mob led by one of the nation’s leading racists, Al Sharpton, who just happens to be the President’s adviser on race. Rev. Sharpton has been mightily abetted by the Democratic Attorney General of the United States, who is conducting a witch-hunt against the Ferguson police force. The Democratic Party <em>is</em> the party of racism, but Republicans are too timid to mention it.</p>
<p>As ever on national security, Democrats have disarmed us in the face of the Islamic crusade against the West, the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation; they have attacked our borders so that we can’t prevent terrorists and criminals from crossing them; they have forced our retreat from Iraq and the Middle East creating a vacuum that has been filled by the armies of ISIS and other well-armed barbarians who have sworn to kill us. Democrats have betrayed our country and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans slaughtered by the terrorist armies their policies have unleashed. Yet where is the Republican voice using the language appropriate to these <i>betrayals</i>?</p>
<p>Yet it is precisely this moral language that Republicans must use to push back the Democrat slanderers who have been so effective in winning elections. Barack Obama is the most incompetent, anti-American, leftwing radical ever nominated by a major political party. Democrats did that. Hold them responsible.</p>
<p>Whatever words Republicans finally use, they have to 1) Get used to the fact that politics is a no-holds-barred street fight and nice guys finish last; 2) Get used to the fact that they are going to have to actually <i>attack</i> Democrats and make it hurt: and 3) Frame their attacks as a <em>moral</em> indictment – or else they will be pulverized by the moral indictments framed by their opponents.</p>
<p>This is my advice. My bet: Paul Ryan and the Republican Party will ignore it.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-gops-missing-electoral-link%e2%80%a8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Change The Game</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/change-the-game-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=change-the-game-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/change-the-game-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 04:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Glazov]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Change the Game]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom-center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hip-hop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[launch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sonnie Johnson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=240322</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["In my very first 'political' speech, I did a comparison between Jay-Z and Ronald Reagan."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sonnie2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-240323" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sonnie2.jpg" alt="sonnie" width="310" height="415" /></a>Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Sonnie Johnson, the CEO and inspiration of <em>Change the Game</em> (<a href="http://www.ctghq.org/">ctghq.org</a>), the new website and activist program launched by the David Horowitz Freedom Center that sets out to expose the failure and racism of progressive policies and to use hip hop culture to reach constituencies previously untouched by conservative messages.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Sonnie Johnson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>Thank you for having me. I have the feeling this will be the first of many.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>You have great intuition!</p>
<p>So let’s begin:</p>
<p>What is <em>Change the Game</em> all about and what inspired you to create it?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>I never wanted to start my own project. I wanted to bring my talent to projects that currently exist, and I tried. It wasn&#8217;t long before I realized if I wanted to do something different, if I really wanted to change the conversation, I was going to have to do it myself.</p>
<p>Plus, there are a lot of black conservatives holding on by a thread. They are one Bundy Ranch, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown story away from leaving the conservative movement. We&#8217;ve lost some really great advocates already. They say they don&#8217;t have a home on the conservative side of the aisle. I wanted to provide that home.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Why has hip hop and its constituency been so insulated from conservative messages? Why have so many conservatives been insulated from hip hop?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>Excellent question. If both sides asked themselves and answered honestly, we could actually have an honest conversation on race and culture.</p>
<p>In my very first &#8220;political&#8221; speech, I did a comparison between Jay-Z and Ronald Reagan. I took quotes straight from Reagan and mirrored them to lyrics by Jay-Z. I thought I was nailing my political coffin, but I wanted people to see we are saying the same thing. Every Tea Party speech I&#8217;ve ever given has hip hop symbolism or direct quotation. When conservatives don&#8217;t know the message is coming from hip hop, I get standing ovations.</p>
<p>When talking to lovers of hip hop, I don&#8217;t focus on blacks and social conservatism. While issues of black marriage, abortion, and protection of religious rights are important to me, I understand a single mother of three is more worried about not having her lights cut off than any of those issues.</p>
<p>If I want to talk to the hip-hop generation about inflation, I talk about my recent trip to the grocery store. If I want to talk about energy independence, I focus on the price of gas and the rise in electricity bills. If I want to talk about limited government, I talk about the heavy police presence and heavy taxation through the ticketing process.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe in utopia. We may never get on the same page and speak the exact same language. Damn it, that&#8217;s the purpose of a republic. We don&#8217;t have to like the same music, the same movies, or arrive at our principles by taking the same road. We just have to respect each other enough to fight for our freedom. After that, you do you and I&#8217;ll do me.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Why has there been a one-party monopoly of black voters for so long? Why has this monopoly occurred and what are its consequences?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>If I were your average black conservative, this is where I would start to blame the Democrats. I would regurgitate how Democrats formed the KKK, started Jim Crow laws, and are the real racists. And I would be telling the truth, but I would still be highly ineffective in changing any minds in the black community.</p>
<p>There is a one-party monopoly in the black community because the Republicans don&#8217;t show up. They spend more money on polls and studies about engagement than actual engagement. When approached with fresh ideas (yes, I&#8217;m talking about you, Reince), they continue with the same tired policies of the past.</p>
<p>In this 2014 cycle, there is no real black engagement because the polls are calling for a Republican sweep. They don&#8217;t need the black vote. Having said that, I see you, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. If the Republicans don&#8217;t want to listen to me, then they should at least follow the moves of some of their own.</p>
<p>Progressives were able to destroy the Republican legacy on civil rights issues because the Republicans weren&#8217;t there to defend it. Your average Republican starts every conversation with &#8220;Reagan said&#8230;,&#8221; like Reagan started the Republican Party. They only claim the party of Lincoln when trying to dismiss calls of racism.</p>
<p>Most Republicans don&#8217;t know the history of the Republican Party. They know the history of Ronald Reagan. How do you sell and defend a legacy you don&#8217;t know?</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> To be sure, progressives wear the mantle of caring about black Americans, but the historical record and empirical reality tell us quite a different and disturbing tale about the earthly incarnations of their ideas. Expand for us on what progressive policies have actually done to minorities and the poor in the inner city.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>Wow, that question makes me want to give a highly historical answer. Or maybe biblical.</p>
<p>What I do best is make it about the people because those are the real victims of progressivism. Growing up, I never knew I was poor. I had three meals a day, a roof over my head, clothes on my back, and a loving family unit. My mother made me go to church and had very high expectation for my education. I didn&#8217;t know we lived below the poverty line.</p>
<p>Things start to change when people start telling you what you can&#8217;t do. Your parents say no to the latest trends due to financial restraints. Teachers tell you what you can&#8217;t do because of societal constraints. Your pastor tells you what you can&#8217;t do due to biblical restraints. Your race tells you what you can&#8217;t achieve due to racial constraints. More and more laws tell you what you can&#8217;t do because of criminal constraints. And no access to capital, training and financial education. What is left?</p>
<p>That&#8217;s when you get, &#8220;F&#8211;k the world!&#8221; As Wale would say, &#8220;If a young n&#8212;er can&#8217;t dribble, can&#8217;t rap, can&#8217;t act&#8230;he ain&#8217;t got no options.&#8221; That&#8217;s what progressivism breeds: a society of zero options. They want you to turn to government, but blacks, especially black males, have refused. They would rather enter the drug game and risk their life in the streets or behind bars than living under the thumb of government dependency.</p>
<p>People think young black males sell drugs for the money. No. They need the money to escape their current situation. They want to live a life not held down by the constraints of progressivism. Until conservatives take a money message, a true money message of capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship into the inner cities, they will progressively move towards further socialization, death and destruction.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>And so now we come full circle back to <em>Change the Game</em>, because you are all about using hip hop to help pull people out of the inner city trap and prison created and enforced by progressive policies. You have noted how hip hop, including gangsta rap, represents the rediscovery of the individual and how it complements the conservative message and the American Dream. Rappers like Ice T, Snoop Dogg and 50 Cent, as you have pointed out, are individuals who embody the capitalist reality and message. Enlighten our audience about this reality and how it &#8220;changes the game.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>First, I love that you used the word &#8220;trap.&#8221; Hip hop created that word to describe a street corner or hustle location. We know it&#8217;s a trap. The more it became a part of our vocabulary, the more it started to include public housing as a whole. I always want to point out that progressivism built those traps. Progressives wanted blacks all in one place to create a supply of workers. Now they value blacks as a supply of voters. That&#8217;s the real trap.</p>
<p>When Dr. Dre released &#8220;The Chronic,&#8221; he was cemented in hip hop history. It will always come up in conversation about the best hip hop albums ever. Recently, Dr. Dre sold his company <em>Beats by Dre</em> for over 2 billion dollars. I&#8217;m guessing if you ask Dr. Dre about the greatest decision in his life, it would be deciding to be a businessman instead of just an artist.</p>
<p>We are constantly talking about the failing school systems in America. If you care about the issue as more than just a talking point, then understand what it means for the kids having to come up through that failing system. The progressive public school agenda tells them America is unfair because they are black. They believe the nonsense.</p>
<p>Hip hop has become a vehicle to uplift a portion of black society. In addition to the artists, there are promoters, dancers, backround singers, bloggers, reporters, bookers, stylists, makeup artists, DJs, and the list goes on on; all getting paid from hip hop. It is a multi-billion-dollar industry nationwide. It all started at neighborhood parties and out of the back of car trunks.</p>
<p>Hip hop is Capitalism 101. Find a service that needs to be filled. Produce a product. Introduce it into the marketplace. Work hard to have the best product in the market. Receive financial success. They weren&#8217;t taught the basics in school, but they had no problem figuring it out naturally.</p>
<p>Hip hop artists today have taken it a step further. They own their labels, the rights to their music, the studio where they record, a clothing line, a brand of vodka, shoes, purses, perfumes, and even water. They have broken the progressive dogma of zero options.</p>
<p>What I want to do with <em>Change the Game</em> is move that same influence and drive towards all forms of industry. Science, math, electronics, and technology are the future and we aren&#8217;t preparing our kids. While hip hop is proof capitalism works, we can&#8217;t stop at having only music, sports, and Hollywood as access points out of poverty.</p>
<p>Listening to 50 Cent say, &#8220;If I can&#8217;t do it homie, it can&#8217;t be done&#8221; while trying to find the cure to cancer; to me, that&#8217;s &#8220;changing the game.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Let’s focus in on you for a moment. Sonnie, can you share with our readers a bit of your own background and journey? Tell us about your upbringing and youth. You were also once a Democrat. How did you ultimately find yourself on the conservative side and then as someone who, as a black American dealing with the issues confronting the black community, wanted to change the game?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>I always wish I could say, &#8220;Two parent home. Stable upbringing. Move on.&#8221; Every time I tell my story people look at me with such sympathetic eyes. Like I must need a hug. No. My past didn&#8217;t break me; it made me.</p>
<p>My biological mother was addicted to drugs when I was born. She couldn&#8217;t take care of me. So, I went to live with my father. He was still running the streets and he couldn&#8217;t take care of me, either. That&#8217;s when I was given to my adoptive mother, my Angel.</p>
<p>I traveled between my mother in public housing and my father in a country house with no plumbing. I was eating government peanut butter one day and picking tomatoes off the vine the next. One night I&#8217;m going to sleep to the sound of gunshots and the next night I hear a thousand crickets at once. I had a very interesting childhood.</p>
<p>When I was 10, someone reported my mother to social services. Since I wasn&#8217;t her biological daughter, I was no longer allowed to live with my family. Everything I had ever know was taken away from me in an instant. (You know, the progressive zero options model.) My mother made me go to church, do my homework, and volunteer in the neighborhood. With my father, there were no rules, no guidelines and it didn&#8217;t take long before I started running the streets.</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t stop running until I was diagnosed with Crohn&#8217;s at 17. Even then, my run became a jog; drinking, smoking, and partying all night. My illness kept me in check because I was constantly in the hospital but I had basically given up on life. Finally, I decided a scar on my stomach would be worth removing the pain and constant trips to hospital (yes, I suffered a year and a half because my vanity didn&#8217;t want a scar).</p>
<p>After six weeks of healing, I went to visit my friends, and they were right where I left them. They were all smoking, drinking, and having a good time. For the first time I thought there has to more to life than this &#8212; within 24 hours, I left Richmond. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.</p>
<p>My transition to conservatism started with another progressive zero options formula. Doctors told me for years I would never be able to get pregnant and if I did, I would never be able to carry full term. God thought differently. It&#8217;s why progressives hate Jesus and want him out of the public arena. Nothing crushes what you can&#8217;t do like believing in the great &#8220;I Am&#8221;; through the Son, all things are possible.</p>
<p>The day I found out I was pregnant with my daughter, my adoptive mother was called home to be with the Lord. That was the day my life changed. I fell on my knees and turned my life back over to God. And I promised my mother I wouldn&#8217;t try so hard to give my daughter the things I didn&#8217;t have that I would forget to give her the things I do have.</p>
<p>I had to ask myself some tough questions. How am I going to teach my daughter how to manage money when I barely know myself? How am I going to teach her about the laws of the land? Who will be her role model and what do I know about that person?</p>
<p>By the time my daughter was ready to go to school, I had given myself a stay-at-home mom education. I knew how to balance a budget and the cost of living outside your means. I understood the necessity of protecting and defend your home. All the lessons mothers learn when starting a family. But I also taught myself to run a website, web code, and some basic design. I read history, outside of the progressive context, and was introduced to Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, and Maggie Walker.</p>
<p>I started <em><a href="http://didshesaythat.com/">DidSheSayThat.com</a></em> and it&#8217;s been a hell of a ride ever since. At first, I didn&#8217;t know I was conservative. I didn&#8217;t understand what the term meant. If I didn&#8217;t seek the information, I never would have made the transition.</p>
<p>Looking at the black community, I always humble myself. I understand these lessons aren&#8217;t being taught in schools, in churches, in groups of friends or circles of acquaintances. I always remember myself at 17 and all the things I didn&#8217;t know.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t hold judgment against someone&#8217;s past; especially due to a lack of information or the knowledge that the information exists. I will, however, judge harshly those that know the truth, but choose to ignore. My journey to conservatism started with a hard knock life education, that&#8217;s where <em>Change the Game</em> starts the conversation.</p>
<p><strong>FP:</strong> Booker T. Washington is a central figure in your vision, and the last person the Left wants to talk about – or say anything good about. Why?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>In 1912, the Tuskegee Institute graduated more self-made millionaires than Harvard, Yale and Princeton combined. Booker T. Washington exposed a truth progressives don&#8217;t want you to see. Fortunes are built by doers with intellect, not intellectuals.</p>
<p>When Washington first started Tuskegee, he was surrounded by former slaves. Now that they were freed men, they believed they should no longer have to work hard. Manual labor was now beneath them. Washington told them, &#8220;Now that you are freed men, you have to work twice as hard because you are now working for yourself.&#8221; If I asked you to break down conservatism, could you do it any better with one line?</p>
<p>Booker T. Washington advocated a money message. &#8220;At the bottom of education, at the bottom of politics, even at the bottom of religion, there must be for our race economic independence.&#8221; It&#8217;s why I skip the social issues and focus on the pocket book.</p>
<p>Booker T. Washington understood progressives and their position in racial tension:</p>
<blockquote><p>There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don&#8217;t want the patient to get well.</p></blockquote>
<p>Which is why I don&#8217;t put a focus on Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. With <em>Change the Game</em>, I want to celebrate all the beauty in the hip hop culture while simultaneously trying to fix some of the issues that plague the black community. I don&#8217;t pretend blacks don&#8217;t have some legitimate grievances. The question is, do you want them solved or do you want to keep the civil rights lifetime job security in-tact?</p>
<p>But one of the greatest facts about Booker T. Washington is that he was actually born a slave. If you think about the modern civil rights movement, they are living off the souls of slavery, the lynchings of Jim Crow, and the water hoses of their parents and grandparents (not referencing those that actually suffered the abuse). They travel first class on their flight, have a car waiting at the airport and stay at a five-star hotel; all while screaming how unfair it is for the black man.</p>
<p>Booker T. Washington didn&#8217;t think about fair or unfair. He only considered results. If history repeats itself, I pray for another Booker T. Washington age in black America.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>What are some of the strategies you will utilize to change the game? You have stated that one of the crucial things to do is to win hearts within the black community by talking about the issues that matter to them &#8212; in terminology that resonates with them and that they can identify with. I think we can fairly say that conservatives have been a failure in this regard up till now.</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>I don&#8217;t want conservatives to come out with a rap song, &#8220;Can&#8217;t we all get along,&#8221; with a remix by Karl Rove. Actually &#8230; never mind.</p>
<p>I like Ayn Rand, so I hate contradiction in my world. I stand beside people who yell, &#8220;Protect the Constitution,&#8221; &#8220;Don&#8217;t tread on me&#8221; and &#8220;Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.&#8221; Mention hip hop and they turn into progressives that would run every lyrical artist out of the country. Then these same people talk about the Left&#8217;s hypocrisy when it comes to the First Amendment. Check your own backyard first.</p>
<p>But what really pisses me off is when conservatives take a shot at hip hop but don&#8217;t want to defend their position against another conservative who likes hip hop. I&#8217;m not calling him a conservative, but Bill O&#8217;Reilly instantly pops into my head. He does a talking points memo about the &#8220;thug culture&#8221; in black America and brings on Beckel and Carville to check him where he&#8217;s wrong. Seriously? Then for a different perspective, he brings on a black progressive that dodges every question or a black conservative that agrees with his every talking point.</p>
<p>Bill O&#8217;Reilly has gotten Jessica&#8217;s Law on the books in over 45 states, but every talking point, race conversation, or serious attempt to change the focus of discussion towards healthy families, thriving communities, and a first class education falls on deaf ears. Every issue becomes an &#8220;us vs. them&#8221; battle to the death.</p>
<p>Especially with O&#8217;Reilly, everything is the fault of hip hop. I will give O&#8217;Reilly credit: He has tried to have a conversation with the hip hop community. Camron and Lupe Fiaso are the two interviews that pop into my mind, but I&#8217;m sure there have been others. But he invites them into a hostile environment where they are in a defensive mode instead of a conversation mode. They are expecting a fight with Bill O&#8217;Reilly.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll just throw this out there. Bill O&#8217;Reilly, if you want to stop wasting your breath having the same conversations and getting nowhere, maybe you should <em>Change your Game</em>.</p>
<p>BET recently ran a biopic look at hip hop in America. Obama was included in this three-part mini-series as a lover of the hip hop culture. (I&#8217;ll pause here for the right side of the aisle to insert a snide remark out loud or under their breath.) When the right thinks about hip hop culture, they think about what progressive radio has shown them. Every hip hop song isn&#8217;t about shaking your ass, pop, lock and drop it, selling drugs, or taking another human life. If you think it is, that&#8217;s why I left the pause especially for you. I&#8217;m never going to win you over and I really don&#8217;t care.</p>
<p>The easiest part about <em>Change the Game</em> is it is effortless. All I have to do is be me. I&#8217;ve a built a team around me; Kevin Daniels, Pudgy Miller, Tracy Connors, Javonni Brustow, Kira Davis, Tezlyn Figaro, Nadra Enzi and Chidike Okeem, and for them it&#8217;s effortless as well. We all care about the people more than we care about the politics or politicians. We aren&#8217;t looking at a single election or election cycle. We are in for a long-term Renaissance in black America; starting with winning the hearts of the people.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>So you gonna change the game?</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>My presence here shows God is faithful to his word. I will continue to pray for wisdom and strength, and by the Grace of God, we will <em>Change the Game</em>.</p>
<p>In Jesus&#8217; Name Amen.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Amen.</p>
<p>Sonnie Johnson, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p>And thank you for changing the game &#8212; and we wish you the best in achieving it!</p>
<p><strong>Johnson: </strong>Thank you.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss Sonnie Johnson&#8217;s powerful testimony in her video, </em><span id="eow-title" class="watch-title  " dir="ltr" title="A Trip Thru Liberalville"><em><strong>A Trip Thru Liberalville</strong>:</em> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9kV8Dfy0lz8" width="420" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/change-the-game-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebel With a Better Cause</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-fonte/rebel-with-a-better-cause/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rebel-with-a-better-cause</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-fonte/rebel-with-a-better-cause/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 04:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Fonte]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claremont Review of Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[My Life and Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Black Book of the American Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Progressives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=240028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A review of the first two volumes of David Horowitz's historic series "The Black Book of the American Left."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-240033" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bb2-433x350.jpg" alt="bb2" width="257" height="208" /></a><strong>[To order <i>The Black Book of the American Left: Volume 1 &#8211; My Life and Times, </i><a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/volume-i/">click here</a><i>; </i><em>Volume</em><i> 2: The Progressives</i>, <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/volume-ii/">click here</a>.] </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>We encourage our readers to visit our new website, <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com,</a>  which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1 and 2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author. <strong>The site also allows readers to discuss the books with David.</strong>]</strong></p>
<p><strong>This article is reprinted from <a href="http://www.claremont.org/claremont-review-of-books/">Claremont Review of Books</a>.<br />
</strong></p>
<p>*</p>
<p><strong>A review of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-American-Left/dp/1594036942/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1407881089&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=The+Black+Book+of+the+American+Left%3A+The+Collected+Conservative+Writings+of+David+Horowitz" target="_blank"><em>The Black Book of the American Left: The Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz</em></a>, by David Horowitz</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-American-Left-Conservative/dp/1594036942/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1407881152&amp;sr=1-1-fkmr1&amp;keywords=david+horowitz+Volume+I%3A+My+Life+and+Times" target="_blank"><strong><em>Volume I: My Life and Times</em></strong></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-American-Left-Volume/dp/1886442959/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=1Q9A6KEYJVV4YE8T977V" target="_blank"><strong><em>Volume II: Progressives</em></strong></a></p>
<p>Does any conservative understand the American Left better than David Horowitz? A “red-diaper” baby raised by Communist parents, Horowitz was a founding father of the New Left by virtue of being co-editor (with Peter Collier) of its flagship journal,<em> Ramparts</em>. The Left’s indifference to Communist bloodbaths in Vietnam and Cambodia, and to Black Panther murders at home, led Collier and Horowitz to reconsider, embrace anti-Communism, and support President Ronald Reagan’s Central American policy. Their “Second Thoughts” project of 1987, a venue for other ex-leftists to criticize their old politics and its new champions, bequeathed <em>Destructive Generation</em> (1989) by Collier and Horowitz, and the establishment of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. After Collier became founding editor of Encounter Books, the Center was renamed the David Horowitz Freedom Center, whose activities include the online <em>FrontPage Magazine</em>.</p>
<p>Readers who seek a moving story of the intertwined unfolding of a life and a political sensibility should read Horowitz’s autobiographical <em>Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey </em>(1997). The author’s “fearless capacity for self-examination,” Christopher Caldwell wrote when it was published, allowed Horowitz “to forge a new career as the kind of person his parents had no doubt warned him against.” Now, <em>The Black Book of the American Left</em> offers, as the subtitle says, the <em>Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz</em>—articles, essays, and speeches on a wide range of political figures and topics, gathered together for the first time. Projected to fill ten volumes, two have been published: <em>My Life and Times</em>, and <em>Progressives</em>. Volume III, on America’s response to 9/11 and jihad, is scheduled for publication later this year.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>* * *</strong></p>
<p>Volume I begins with an article the soon-to-be ex-leftist Horowitz wrote in 1979 for the <em>Nation</em> and ends with a speech delivered to the Zionist Organization of America in 2012. The pages in between gather work on religion, Blaise Pascal, the conservatism of James Madison and Edmund Burke, his late daughter, and his writing partner Collier. But mostly Horowitz writes about the American Left, admitting he is “condemned Ahab-like to pursue” it. In a series of lively, provocative polemics we encounter Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden; Joan Baez; Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame; writers John Judis, Todd Gitlin, and Sid (“Vicious”) Blumenthal; and a Soviet KGB agent in London.</p>
<p>With essays written over several decades that connect the progressive past to the progressive present, Volume II would enhance and balance any course on modern American history. Horowitz provides an invaluable antidote to the misleading, mendacious historical narrative presented in contemporary state curricular standards, approved textbooks, and thousands of high school and university history classes. For the most part, today’s students are led to understand the Cold War in terms of moral equivalence. Leading events like the Berlin Airlift and Cuban Missile Crisis are described (in the National History Standards, for example) as the swordplay of competing superpowers, instead of being part of John F. Kennedy’s “long twilight struggle” between Communism and the Free World. Textbooks and curricula teach students that anti-Communism at home consisted largely of the “Red Scare” after World War I, “McCarthyism” after World War II, and a hysterical Cold War “witch-hunt” for imaginary Communists in government and Hollywood. They rarely convey that USSR archives and the Venona tapes—messages from Soviet intelligence agencies decrypted and translated by the U.S. government—revealed widespread Communist espionage and subversion in our political and cultural institutions. Students learn about the Hollywood blacklist, but not about pro-Stalin Communists’ attempts in Hollywood to take over labor unions, including the Screen Actors Guild, and to infiltrate and influence studios.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>* * *</strong></p>
<p>By contrast, Horowitz argues that what America really experienced in the last century were “Red Threats.” The Palmer raids of the 1920s, for example, led by A. Mitchell Palmer, President Woodrow Wilson’s attorney general, were “triggered by a massive domestic campaign of terror conducted by anarchist organizations” which involved a “hundred mail bombs” and attempts to kill Palmer, banker J.P. Morgan, and many others. The domestic Cold War period, the so-called McCarthy era, should instead be called “a time of fifth-column treasons.” Citing historians Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Ronald Radosh, Horowitz argues that it is now established “beyond any reasonable doubt” that almost all of the Red Scare “victims” directly served the Soviets as spies or supported Stalin as fellow travelers.</p>
<p>Despite evidence from these sources detailing China scholar Owen Lattimore’s strong pro-Soviet positions and close connections to White House staffer and Soviet spy, Lauchlin Currie, Jacob Weisberg wrote for the <em>New York Times Magazine</em> that Lattimore was “the China hand absurdly named [by Joseph McCarthy] as the Soviets’ ‘top spy’ in the United States.” Though McCarthy was wrong to call Lattimore Stalin’s top spy, Weisberg and the <em>Times</em> were more wrong to characterize him in 1999 as a victim of an anti-Communist witch hunt. Lattimore was, as Horowitz writes, “a devious, unscrupulous, self-conscious betrayer of his country and a willing servant of the Soviet cause who worked hand-in-glove with its underground spy apparatus in the United States.”</p>
<p>Horowitz is at his best when reminding us of the Left’s frauds and poseurs who have come to be lionized. Betty Friedan, for example, the author of <em>The Feminine Mystique</em> (1963) and founder of the modern feminist movement, is usually depicted reverently in textbooks. Though she portrayed herself as an apolitical housewife who became dissatisfied with her lot and characterized her middle-class marriage as a “comfortable concentration camp,” Friedan was, Horowitz explains, “a 25-year veteran of professional journalism in the Communist left,” whose feminist theories were recycled Marxist hackery. Her oppression was notably genteel: married to a theater producer, Friedan resided in a Hudson River mansion maintained by a maid.</p>
<p>Tom Hayden, a founder of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), is usually presented in textbooks as an anti-war activist and idealist. Horowitz knew Hayden well during the ’60s and tells a different story. Hayden and his then companion, Jane Fonda, did not simply want American forces to withdraw from Vietnam. Rather, they worked assiduously for Communist victory against America throughout Southeast Asia. As Horowitz puts it, they sought to provide a “propaganda shield for Hanoi’s Communist regime while it tortured American war prisoners.”</p>
<p>Most contemporary historians treat the anti-war movement sympathetically, but Horowitz recalls it with deep remorse. “While American boys were dying overseas, we spat on the flag, broke the law, denigrated and disrupted the institutions of government and education, gave comfort and aid, even revealing classified secrets to the enemy.” Most importantly, in both of these volumes, his comprehensive portrait of progressivism past and present delineates the ongoing ideological conflict and, thus, the needed conservative response. The core argument in America today, he shows, is not simply between liberals, who favor greater regulation and higher taxes, and conservatives, who support lower taxes and more limited government. Rather, our politics is animated by deep disagreements over core civilizational principles and human nature itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>* * *</strong></p>
<p>In short, we are in a conflict over the nature and destiny of the American regime. Since the 1960s the progressive project has aggressively sought to transform America’s institutions, ideas, manners, and mores. Indeed, one of the chief protagonists in this conflict, Barack Obama, has declared his intent to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” In a speech in October 2013, David Horowitz noted that the president and his key advisors Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod “came out of” the “same radical new left as I did.”</p>
<p>What then constitutes the Left? My own judgment, strongly reinforced by insights from Horowitz’s <em>Black Book</em>, is that leftism, first and foremost, is <em>not</em> liberalism. “Vital Center” liberals of the post-World War II era opposed Communism and supported individual rights, including academic freedom and free speech. The New Left ultimately won, however, and those called liberals today see the world in ways fundamentally different from Cold War liberals like Harry Truman and JFK.</p>
<p>The Left eschews individual rights and places group consciousness and group rights at the center of its worldview. All public and private life is seen through the prism of race, ethnicity, gender, and class. Individuals are categorized as members of either the dominant oppressor group (heterosexual white males) or as oppressed victims—racial, ethnic, linguistic, and sexual minorities; women; illegal immigrants; and others.</p>
<p>The goal is “substantive equality,” meaning equality of result for every demographic subset of the population. If women are 51% of the population, at least 51% of all lawyers, doctors, members of Congress, etc., should be women. This utopian goal would require a radical, coercive restructuring of American society based on the illiberal premise of strengthening group rights while weakening those possessed and exercised by individual citizens. Progressivism, Horowitz argues, is an ersatz religion devoted to creating an earthly paradise. This faith-based aspiration renders it immune to evidence rebutting its core tenets.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>* * *</strong></p>
<p>The intellectual roots of the contemporary American Left are found in Hegelian or cultural Marxism, especially the writings of 20th-century Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, who wrote endlessly about “dominant” and “oppressed” groups in liberal democratic societies. When 21st-century American writers and politicians decry “institutional” or “systemic” racism and sexism, they recycle Marxist canards about the illegitimacy of our social and political institutions. During congressional debate over “gender equity” legislation in education and crime in the early 1990s, for example, senators Joe Biden and Olympia Snowe droned on about the “institutional,” “systemic” nature of sexism in America. Unconscious, reflexive Marxist assumptions have become commonplace in the political discourse of what is misnamed American liberalism.</p>
<p>Horowitz rightly complains that although the American Left is not in any sense “liberal,” it is described as such by nearly all journalists and most conservative opponents. In reality, the Left has taken on the coloration of liberalism after having routed the old centrist liberals in the Democratic Party, the media, and higher education. The <em>New York Times</em> describes everyone from long-time Communist Party USA activist Angela Davis to former senator Joe Lieberman as a “liberal.”</p>
<p>Horowitz recognizes categories of leftists, correctly describing Michael Walzer, for example, as “decent” and “patriotic.” Horowitz has in the past offered a five-part typology of the Left: totalitarian radicals, anti-American radicals, leftists, moderate leftists, and affective leftists (i.e., Hollywood airheads). Though I prefer dividing the Left into just three parts—the hard Left, the mainstream Left, and what remains of centrist liberalism—one reward for reading Horowitz carefully is the acquisition of grist that can be milled in a variety of ways.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>* * *</strong></p>
<p>The hard Left is hostile to free market capitalism; the “imperialism” of American foreign policy since the middle of the 20th century; and our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional order. Thoroughly alienated from America, the hard Left has apologized to and for America’s enemies—Communist, Islamist, Sandinista, or followers of the late Hugo Chavez—for the past 50 years. Its publicists include Hayden, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky. Its political base is the Congressional Progressive Caucus, while its organizational apparatus comprises MoveOn.org, the Center for Constitutional Rights, ACORN, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Code Pink, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and its bulletin boards include the<em> Nation</em> and <em>Daily Kos</em>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the mainstream Left, the most important political faction in America today, is epitomized by the <em>New York Times</em> editorial page, which has internalized the academic “race, ethnicity, gender” critique while eschewing the Marxist jargon. Hence, the mainstream Left strongly supports public and private initiatives that promote “substantive” equality, whether in the military, private businesses, or state universities. Further, it favors mass immigration while opposing patriotic assimilation, preferring dogmatic multiculturalism that places new immigrants in ethnic boxes.</p>
<p>If the hard Left is alienated from America, the mainstream Left is ambiguous about America. Deploring American “arrogance” abroad, it favors restricting American sovereignty and freedom of action through new interpretations of “evolving” international law and adherence to “global norms” developed by transnational elites, as opposed to officials elected by and answerable to American citizens. It could more accurately be described as post-American than anti-American. Thus, it looks forward, as the American Bar Association puts it, to “the global rule of law” instead of recognizing the U.S. Constitution as our highest legal authority.</p>
<p>It is also decidedly cool toward long-time American allies like Britain and Israel. Anti-anti-Communist in the past, it’s anti-anti-jihadist today. Whether examining foreign policy or American history, the mainstream Left, while tepidly endorsing “our ideals,” dwells on America’s past sins and emphasizes slavery, segregation, racism, and sexism.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>* * *</strong></p>
<p>At the center of the mainstream Left is the Obama Administration, but it includes the dominant media and major foundations like Ford and Rockefeller, which promoted the political, cultural, and economic transformation of the United States decades before Barack Obama came along. The mainstream Left consists of organizations like the ACLU, NOW, NAACP, Center for American Progress; and political leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>What remains of the old centrist liberalism of the Adlai Stevenson-Hubert Humphrey type? Almost nothing. Centrist liberalism is a shell, consisting of a few blue dog Democrats and a handful of figures like Joe Lieberman, Senator Joe Manchin, and journalist Mickey Kaus. The interactions that matter take place on the spectrum that ranges from the hard to the mainstream Left, where relationships are, increasingly, symbiotic rather than competitive. Former Obama Administration official and environmental activist Van Jones, for example, was a self-described Communist and revolutionary, the founder of a Maoist organization. Praised by Nancy Pelosi as “one of the most innovative and strategic thinkers of our time,” he received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and currently works at the Center for American Progress.</p>
<p>In these volumes and throughout his oeuvre David Horowitz offers a deep understanding of the worldviews, divisions, strategies, tactics, and temperaments that define the American Left. His conservative readers will acquire new conceptual tools needed to wage the long twilight struggle for the American regime.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-fonte/rebel-with-a-better-cause/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Take No Prisoners</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/j-christian-adams/take-no-prisoners/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=take-no-prisoners</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/j-christian-adams/take-no-prisoners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:56:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J. Christian Adams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battle blan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defeat the Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest book by David Horowitz provides modern battle plan for conservatives.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/horowitz_prisoners.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239536" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/horowitz_prisoners-450x318.jpg" alt="horowitz_prisoners" width="318" height="225" /></a><strong>To purchase David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, <em>Take No Prisoners</em>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621572560/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1621572560&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=pjmedia-20&amp;linkId=ZLFKIO3OORHJOL6H">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJMedia.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Ten pages into David Horowitz’s new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621572560/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1621572560&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=pjmedia-20&amp;linkId=ZLFKIO3OORHJOL6H"><em>Take No Prisoners: The Battleplan for Defeating the Left</em></a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560"> </a>(Regnery, 2014), I realize putting dog-ears on pages with important quotes for this review is hopeless. I’ve placed a dog-ear on every page. By the end, the whole book might be dog-eared.</p>
<p>If there was a single book to add to the swag-bag for the attendees at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, <em>Take No Prisoners</em> is the book. Not only is the book helpful in understanding the modern political battlespace, as Horowitz makes clear throughout, the delegates who will be in Cleveland are sorely in need of help.</p>
<p>Many still think elections are won or lost because one side has better ideas than the other. Election losers convinced that they had better ideas harbor all sorts of excuses for their loss — the media, economic earthquakes, silly character attacks.</p>
<p>Recall in 2012 the relentless and unopposed effort to define Mitt Romney as beholden to the richest of the rich, out of touch with most Americans. Republicans delivered wet noodle complaints that the attacks were “class warfare” and “divisive.” Horowitz:</p>
<blockquote><p>These were weak and whiny responses, all too familiar from previous Republican campaigns. Common to both was failure to address the specific charges . . . The term “class warfare” is a polite way of discussing a real problem, namely leftist agendas in national politics. But politeness protects others – in this case, opponents who are busy defaming you as mean spirited and selfish. . . it fails to hold your adversaries accountable for what they have actually done and are likely to continue doing if elected.</p></blockquote>
<p>And what of the zinger that Obama was “divisive?” Horowitz:</p>
<blockquote><p>Complaining about “divisive politics” is not only futile, it is incomprehensible. Elections are by nature divisive. They are competitions between winners and losers. They are about defeating opponents. Why wouldn’t they be divisive??</p></blockquote>
<p>The strongest part of <em>Take No Prisoners</em>, is how Horowitz matches his skill as a word-smith with real campaign choices. Every Horowitz book is characterized by brilliant writing, and sharp word choices. <em>Take No Prisoners</em> is about how Republicans have dropped the ball on writing the national narrative, and how they can get it back by crafting words and tactics that counter the left’s mastery of the process.</p>
<p>Many in the GOP and conservative movement might not like the taste of Horowitz’s medicine. A party raised on the primacy of ideas and policies will feel uncomfortable with the smashmouth suggestions in <em>Take No Prisoners.</em> I’ve heard the complaints — ‘we don’t want to become them’ — a complaint more convenient when the threats to liberty were less advanced. It’s also a complaint that misses the mark as a matter of fact:</p>
<blockquote><p>Behind Republican failures at the ballot box is an attitude that reflects an administrative rather than political approach to election campaigns. Republicans focus on policy proposals rather than electoral combat and the threat posed by their opponents. Administrative politicians are more comfortable with budgets and pie-charts than with the flesh and blood victims of their opponent’s policies and ideas. When Republicans do appeal to the victims of Democrat’s policies, those victims are frequently small business owners and other job creators – people who in the eyes of most Americans are rich.</p></blockquote>
<p>At the root of this strategic mistake is the belief among many Republicans that the two parties still share the same goals, but have divergent ways to get there. News flash: Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Scoop Jackson no longer exist. The Democrats have been taken over by messianic progressives seeking to craft the world in their own image. “Republicans do not hope to change the world. They are too mindful of the human catastrophes that have been brought about by those who do,” the former Communist Horowitz writes because he knows it all too well.</p>
<blockquote><p>As a result of this attitude, conservative’s emotions are not inflamed as progressives’ are when confronting those with whom they disagree. The conservative instinct is to search for common ground and to arrive at practical measures to address public problems. That is why they take a lot of time explaining to voters how their proposals might work. But by the time they reach them, many voters are not listening.</p></blockquote>
<p>This may be the central dividing line between the establishment and the Tea Party — a division Horowitz notes is more a question of tactics than goals.</p>
<p>I regularly encounter this aversion to the fight, despite the fact I receive emails and expressions of thanks from lawyers across Holder’s Justice Department. Lawyers trapped inside DOJ are filled with gratitude that I (and a few others) aggressively shine a light on Holder’s misbehavior and radicalism. Some GOP alumni of the DOJ grumble that it hurts the institution or goes too far.  But the good people still trapped inside a radicalized Justice Department, who see the disappearance of standards which governed the place for decades, are thankful. Even leaders of the Department of Justice during the age of Reagan are on the side of sunshine, not in the camp of those giving Eric Holder quarter. Horowitz didn’t name his book <em>Take no Prisoners</em> by accident.</p>
<p>Horowitz’s prescription: 1) Put the aggressors on defense. 2) Throw their victims in their faces. 3) Start the campaign now because they already have.</p>
<p>Horowitz dissects the left’s machine — not just the electoral tactics from the 2012 election and the inadequate GOP response, but the interplay between narrative, words, tactics, and ultimately questions involving race.</p>
<p>Race has become the central organizing energy behind the progressive domination of the Democrat party, and the defeat of the GOP. Race is the word that makes Republicans scatter in terror. Some Republicans have decided that the best approach to racial issues is to give the race agitators what they want.</p>
<p>This rewards evil. Organizing Americans on racial lines is evil. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives to eradicate polices that treated people differently because of skin color. Horowitz:</p>
<blockquote><p>When all is said and done, this racial Teflon is the reason that Republicans lose elections. . . . If conservatives are unable to repel and neutralize these squalid Democratic attacks, they can’t hold Democrats accountable. They can’t hold Obama accountable, and by extension they can’t hold any progressive accountable. Because this is how they fight. . . Any form of counterstrategy to these Democratic offensives must take the form of an attack.</p></blockquote>
<p>Horowitz is right.</p>
<p>Here’s an example. The NAACP is a morally bankrupt organization. They held the moral high ground a half century ago and helped end racial evil. But in 2014, they thrive on scaring and tricking minorities into being afraid. They herd minorities into solid electoral blocks by telling them Republicans seek to disenfranchise them by passing voter ID. They lie to minorities to scare them the same way white southerners stirred cultural fear of black men a century ago because they posed a predatory threat to southern women. That Voter ID disenfranchises blacks in 2014, and black men in 1914 were a predatory threat to white women, are both racially motivated lies designed to stoke fear and paranoia of the opposite race.</p>
<p>It’s time that the GOP go on offense against the racial lies the Democrats use to defeat them at the ballot box.</p>
<p>But will they? I’m not so sure. There are many who think the best way to respond to a lie is to flee because the lie is effective.</p>
<p>Horowitz describes this lack of GOP unity:</p>
<blockquote><p>Internal dissention not only blunts Republican attacks, it hands Democrats convenient stick to beat them with. No one on the Right thinks this is an advantageous situation. . . . What Democrats have that Republicans lack is the power of a unifying idea. . . . That idea – the idea of changing the entire framework of the nation’s life, of ‘making a better world’ – is what unifies the Left and gives it power.</p></blockquote>
<p>Horowitz concludes that politics has become religion to progressives, and when you oppose their politics, you stand in the way of their religious crusade. Until the Republicans understand that merely talking about pie charts and policy proposals cannot defeat messianic attacks, they will continue to lose Presidential elections.</p>
<p>After a GOP primary debate in South Carolina in February 2012, I was driving back to the hotel with PJ Media’s Roger Simon. Roger was inclined to go for Romney. I was partial to Newt Gingrich. Roger wanted a victory in November, and so did I. We just got there different ways. “I fear Romney doesn’t understand the left,” I told Roger. If you don’t understand the modern progressive left, you won’t defeat them, and that’s what Take No Prisoners is designed to do: Educate those who don’t understand the modern left, and provide a way to defeat them.</p>
<p>Romney’s dog would end up proving me right in 2012.</p>
<p>The Obama campaign <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/16/simon-schuster-to-capitalize-on-romney-hates-dogs-craze-sweeping-nation/">aggressively</a> went after Romney because he once put his dog in a car carrier designed for the purpose on the exterior of his station wagon. I saw bumper stickers, usually on cars driven by women, saying “Dogs for Obama.” Republicans laughed at the attack on how Romney treated his dog, not thinking it was serious.</p>
<p>Never mind the chutzpah of the Obama campaign attacking Romney for his treatment of his dog — all from a man who <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/Obama-Autobiography-dog-Romney/2012/04/20/id/436539/">used to eat them</a>. Had someone in the Romney campaign crafted a witty well worded response that alluded to Obama’s past, the whole matter would have boomeranged back on Obama. How many hundreds of thousands of voters, voters who didn’t pay attention to conservative media, would have said – “huh!? Obama ate a dog?”</p>
<p>Had someone in a 2008 campaign crafted a witty well worded response that alluded to Obama’s past other than the dog eating, we might never have been stuck with him.</p>
<p>Instead, the rational shrugged off the dog on the roof attack as silly.  We’ve been laughing at the silliness of the left for 30 years, not thinking it was serious. In the meantime, the very unserious views we laughed at are now policy.</p>
<p>Saul Alinsky’s Rule Number Five understands this: “RULE 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.” When your opponent is ridiculing you, you are in very dangerous territory, and there is only one effective response. Fire must be used against fire.</p>
<p>Horowitz lays out an architecture in <em>Take No Prisoners</em> for conservatives to operate in the modern political battlespace. Among the key points are “in political warfare, the aggressor usually prevails. Position is defined by fear and hope. The weapons of politics are those that evoke fear and hope. Victory lies on the side of the people.”</p>
<p>The details are in the book. And if Republicans want to reverse a string of electoral losses in 2016, let’s hope Republicans read it.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/j-christian-adams/take-no-prisoners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Excerpts from David Horowitz&#8217;s &#8216;Take No Prisoners&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/excerpts-from-david-horowitzs-take-no-prisoners-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=excerpts-from-david-horowitzs-take-no-prisoners-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/excerpts-from-david-horowitzs-take-no-prisoners-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 04:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239073</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unveiling the battle plan for defeating the Left. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #323333;"><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/611d4mEhzuL._SL300_.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239015" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/611d4mEhzuL._SL300_.jpg" alt="611d4mEhzuL._SL300_" width="266" height="266" /></a>Editor&#8217;s note: Below are select excerpts from Freedom Center President David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, &#8220;Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left.&#8221; </em></p>
<p style="color: #323333;"><em><strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">Order your copy of &#8220;Take No Prisoners.&#8221; </a> </strong></em></p>
<p style="color: #323333;"><strong>On the failure of the Republican Party to answer the Democrats’ accusations:</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="color: #323333;">Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, yet they seem unable to learn basic facts from their losses. Year after year and election after election, the Democrats’ campaign themes are monotonously the same. They scare voters by accusing Republicans of imaginary crimes. And always the same crimes: Republicans wage wars on women, on minorities, and on the vulnerable. They defend the rich and don’t care about the poor. Their policies inflict pain on working families to benefit the wealthy few. Year after year, the Democrats repeat these attacks, and year after year, Republicans fail to come up with effective responses. Worse, they don’t present voters with answers that neutralize the attacks, or take the battle to the enemy camp. (p. 1)</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color: #323333;"><strong>On how the Republican Party can become effective again:</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="color: #323333;">In losing the political war over Iraq, Republicans lost the national security narrative, which is why they are tongue-tied today when it comes to issues of war and peace. Call it the ‘Iraq War Syndrome.’… Three years later, when Obama delivered Iraq to Iran, no Republican accused him of betraying the Americans who gave their lives to make Iraq independent and free…The only way to reverse this dangerous trend is for Republicans to renew their role as guardians of the nation’s security, to educate the electorate about the threat posed by Islamic supremacists, and to challenge the Democrats’ seditious efforts to appease their malign agendas. It is also the Republicans’ only path to an electoral majority. (p. 37-38).</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color: #323333;"><strong>On how Progressives view their strategy:</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="color: #323333;">Progressives do not openly call for the creation of a totalitarian state, but that is the logic of their desire: to compel people to do what is good for them, down to the last Big Gulp. Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not set out to create a gulag state that would execute millions and crush human liberty… If you believe that the cause of human suffering is ‘society,’ and if you believe that by fundamentally transforming society you can change human nature and end human suffering and need, what means will you deny yourself, what opposition will you not suppress, to see that the transformation takes place? Because progressives see themselves as social redeemers and their goal as saving the world, they regard politics as a religious war… it is why the politics of personal destruction is their politics of choice and why they can commit character assassinations without regrets. Obama never apologized for accusing his opponent of killing a cancer patient during the election campaign, because saving humanity means never having to say you’re sorry. (p. 44)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/excerpts-from-david-horowitzs-take-no-prisoners-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s Treachery and Republican Silence</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/obamas-treachery-and-republican-silence/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-treachery-and-republican-silence</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/obamas-treachery-and-republican-silence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2014 07:04:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=238195</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When will they stop pretending this is a normal presidency?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ob61.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-238205" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ob61-404x350.jpg" alt="ob6" width="129" height="112" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="www.nationalreview.com">NRO Online</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>To order David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, &#8220;</strong><span id="productTitle" class="a-size-large"><strong><em>Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left</em>,&#8221; <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1621572560/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon">click here</a>.</strong><br />
</span></p>
<p>Barack Obama deliberately set out to lose the war in Iraq, and he did. He defied the advice of his joint chiefs of staff to secure America’s formidable military presence and keep 20,000 troops in country, and left Iraq to its own devices and the tender mercies of Iran. In doing so, he betrayed every American and Iraqi who gave his life to create a free Iraq and keep it out of the clutches of the terrorists.</p>
<p>Iraq is now a war zone dominated by the terrorist forces of the Islamic State, whose rise Obama’s policies fostered. Both his secretaries of state praised the animal Bashar Assad as a “reformer” and a man of “peace,” helping him to thwart his domestic opposition. The Islamic State was born out of the Syrian chaos that ensued.</p>
<p>Far worse was Obama’s open support for America’s mortal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, spawner of al-Qaeda and Hamas. During the “Arab Spring,” Obama essentially put America’s weight behind the legitimization of this murderous organization that had been outlawed for 40 years for its assassinations and conspiracies against the Egyptian regime. Secretary of State Clinton gave totally unfounded assurances to the world that the Brotherhood was ready to become part of the democratic process and give up its 90-year holy war against infidels, Jews in particular but also — and explicitly — America. During the Brotherhood’s brief tenure as the government in Egypt Obama gave these genocidal zealots more than a billion dollars in American aid and F-16 fighter-bombers that could easily reach Israel’s major population centers, which for 60 years the Brotherhood had sworn to destroy.</p>
<p>By his feckless interventions in the Middle East, and his tacit support for the chief organization of Islam’s terror war against the West, Obama has set the Middle East on fire. All the violence in the crescent from Gaza to Iraq, including Hamas’s genocidal war against Israel, has been encouraged by Obama’s support for the Brotherhood and hostility toward the Jewish state.</p>
<p>Characteristic of this encouragement was his illegal intervention in Libya, which violated every principle that Obama and the Democrats invoked to attack President Bush and undermine America’s war against the Saddam regime and the terrorists in Iraq. Thanks to Obama, Libya is now in the hands of the terrorists and thousands of Libyans are fleeing to Tunisia and Egypt. Thanks to Obama, the Christian communities of Iraq, which date back to the time of Christ, are being slaughtered.</p>
<p>Because of Obama’s aversion to America’s role as a keeper of international peace, the tyrant Putin has been able to swallow Crimea and threaten the rest of Ukraine. Since his election in 2009, Obama’s policies have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people and will result in the deaths of tens of thousands more. Thanks to his efforts to destroy America’s borders, Americans may be included in this grim toll. Certainly, Americans are now threatened by terrorists as never before.</p>
<p>Where is the Republican opposition? Why are Republicans still treating Obama as though his were a normal presidency and not a national disgrace? Why are there no indictments of Obama for the carnage he has enabled?</p>
<p>There is one foreign policy area where Republicans have shown some fight: Benghazi. But the fight here has been over an inquiry — important in its own right, but not a political challenge to Obama’s efforts to sabotage and degrade the country he is supposed to lead.</p>
<p>We know the basic facts. Obama’s team was trying to monitor and recapture the weapons we had helped supply to Islamist militias in Libya. That was Ambassador Stevens’s mission. No security was provided because Stevens’s mission had to be secret and plausibly deniable in the middle of an election in which Obama was running on the cynical lie that the war on terror had been won. During the battle waged by American heroes against the terrorists’ assault in Benghazi, the president and his secretary of state went A.W.O.L. and left these brave Americans to die. Instead of honoring them and hunting down their killers, Obama then took off for a fundraiser in Las Vegas. This was surely the most shameful individual act by a president in the history of the White House.</p>
<p>Having abandoned these American heroes and their families, Obama and his minions then lied to the American people about the terrorist attack and used it as an occasion to defend the Prophet Mohammed in a U.N. address to the world. This series of acts showed Obama’s contempt for the American military, contempt for the American people, and sympathy for America’s enemies, an attitude that has been revealed over and over again.</p>
<p>When will Republicans gather the courage to start speaking truth to power?</p>
<p><i>— David Horowitz is the author of the newly published book </i><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1621572560" target="_blank">Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left</a><i>.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/obamas-treachery-and-republican-silence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>181</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Horowitz Joins Hannity to Discuss Obama&#8217;s Anti-American Agenda</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battle Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defeating the Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=237367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Freedom Center president explains how the Radical-in-Chief is taking us down as a nation -- and how conservatives can fight back. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/plwe1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-237388" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/plwe1-450x300.jpg" alt="Barack Obama" width="308" height="205" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, &#8220;</strong><span id="productTitle" class="a-size-large"><strong><em>Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left</em>,&#8221; <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">click here</a>.</strong><br />
</span></p>
<p><em>Below is the transcript for David Horowitz&#8217;s appearance on Monday, July 28<sup>th</sup>, on <a href="http://www.hannity.com/main.html">The Hannity Radio Show</a> to discuss his just released new book,  <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left</a>.</em></p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> David, it&#8217;s good to have you back on the program.  How are you?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Thanks, Sean.  Let me just say that you have the best media voice of anyone on this issue of the Middle East, and I thank you for it.</p>
<p>Obama is an anti-American.  He supports the terrorists, he&#8217;s supporting Hamas in this battle.  He supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of al-Qaeda and all the terrorist groups in the Middle East.  He is leading a retreat of America from the world.  He is taking us down as a nation.  He&#8217;s an anti-American radical with Communist views.  And we need to have more people saying this, telling it like it is.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Let me just say &#8212; whenever somebody &#8212; I have so many people that tape this program on a regular basis &#8212; they&#8217;re going to say &#8212; Hannity allows Horowitz to say the President hates America.  Let me &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> He does hate America!</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Let me ask you this question.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Yes?</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Why would this President give Mohamed Morsi 1.5 billion &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Exactly.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Now, Mohamed Morsi referred to the Israelis, Jews, as descendents of apes and pigs.  We gave him tanks &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> These are followers of the jihad, they&#8217;re supporters of the jihad.  They want to kill every infidel and make everybody subservient to their version of Allah.  That&#8217;s basically what it&#8217;s about.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Well, look at what&#8217;s going on in Mosul.  We now have a situation where if you&#8217;re a Christian and you live in Mosul, and the new radical ISIS &#8212; because we never supported Iraq with intelligence and training; we just pulled out, because politically that was expedient for Obama.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Obama came to office determined to lose the Iraq war, which he has done.  And he has lost the war in Afghanistan, which he has done.  And he has lost the Middle East.  And Republicans are not shouting this from the rooftops.  Obama’s actions are all very deliberate.  He is a lifelong anti-American radical.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve been terrific on Bill Ayers.  Bill Ayers&#8217;s views are Obama&#8217;s views.  Bill Ayers is critical of Obama from the left, but that&#8217;s because he&#8217;s not in power.  But if Bill Ayers was in power with Obama, he&#8217;d be doing exactly what Obama is doing.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Here&#8217;s what the United States of America is doing right now that I don&#8217;t think most Americans know.  We are giving the Hamas Palestinian coalition government &#8212; they just give him 47 million more dollars.  We gave them, what, 400 million recently.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> This guy sympathizes with America&#8217;s enemies.  There&#8217;s no other way to explain it.  But I need to talk about my &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> I&#8217;m going to talk about your book.  Look, I don&#8217;t [see] it the way you do.  I don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s in his heart.  I do know that he is exactly who I said he would be, and that is his ACORN, Alinsky, friendships and associations with Father Pfleger and Reverend Wright, and Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.  He is a rigid, radical ideologue.  I &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> That&#8217;s all correct, Sean.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Hang on, hang on.  And he has governed with no capacity to be pragmatic or change like Bill Clinton &#8212; the era of big government is over.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> No, because he&#8217;s an ideologue.  I know what&#8217;s in his heart.  Because he comes out of this exact identical Left that I spent, you know, my life in until I was 35.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Why do you say &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> The same people, the same ideas, the same ill will towards this country.  And he never came out of it.  So that&#8217;s how I know.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> So in other words, you grew up with Communist parents.  Your parents were Communists.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Right.  And his mentor was a Communist.  He came &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Frank Marshall Davis.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> &#8212; out of a Communist background.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Well.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> And he never repudiated it.  And because he never repudiated it, I know he still believes it. He didn&#8217;t repudiate it because he identifies with it.  You know, Valerie Jarrett is the same, David Axelrod &#8212; they&#8217;re all &#8212; they all come out of the anti-American communist left.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> What is it that you think he thinks?  Because I know you&#8217;re going to criticized for your words, &#8220;anti-American radical.&#8221;  So I want to give you some &#8212; I want to give you a chance to clarify.  Are you saying that his radical, rigid ideology that he believes that America&#8217;s an imperialist country, that &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Absolutely.  And he wants to weaken America. Every time America is weakened, the oppressed of the world are, in his eyes, uplifted.  That is his view.  He is a radical of the Jeremiah Wright, Billy Ayers, Alinsky school.  And there&#8217;s just no question about it.  You know, Stanley Kurtz has written a whole book documenting this.  But it should be evident to everyone now.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Now, let me ask you about this.  We&#8217;re heading into an important election.  And I&#8217;ve talked about, at length on this program, I&#8217;m kind of inspired by what conservative governors are doing.  I was just talking to Paul Ryan about it.  And in other words, they&#8217;re taking deficits, turning them into surpluses.  High unemployment &#8212; they&#8217;re creating jobs in their state.  You know, I&#8217;m talking about Texas, Rick Perry; Florida, Rick Scott &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Yep.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> &#8212; Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Scott Walker.  I mean, you know, Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley &#8212; those people are doing some good work.</p>
<p>I have been frustrated with Republicans in Congress, because they don&#8217;t seem &#8212; they seem too timid, too unwilling to fight Obama, too unwilling to use their constitutional authority on spending.  And they don&#8217;t have an inspiring vision that makes me say, you know, I want to vote for you, because that sounds like a good idea.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> That&#8217;s exactly right.  My book is a book on how to fight.</p>
<p>Look, Chris Lehane, who&#8217;s a Democratic strategist, said &#8212; everybody has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth.  The Democrats have a massive punch, which they use every election against Republicans, calling them racists, sexists, women-haters, minority-haters, haters of the poor.  When they do that, they can take a perfectly decent human being like Mitt Romney and so tar and feather him that his message never gets across.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s the Republican punch in the mouth, the response to this?  There is none!  They have absolutely no answer. Republicans are all focused on policies, on budgets, on administrative things.  The answer is very obvious.  You take the victims of the Democrats, and you throw them in their faces.  It&#8217;s Democrats who are racist.  They control all the major inner cities in America.  Every policy that affects the inner city is a Democratic monopoly.  They have millions, millions of poor black and Hispanic children in schools that don&#8217;t teach them.  And they have them trapped there and won&#8217;t let them go to private schools.  They won&#8217;t give them choice, freedom.</p>
<p>This is a horrendous social atrocity.  For decades, this has been going on.  The Democrats have controlled the inner cities of America for 50 to 100 years.  The Republican Convention should&#8217;ve been held in Detroit, which is the symbol of what Democrats do when they have the power.</p>
<p>In 1961, Detroit was the richest city in America.  Now, it&#8217;s the poorest large city in America.  Two thirds of its population has fled.  Why?  Because the Democrats have racist, anti-white policies; they drove the white middle class out.  They&#8217;re anti-business; they drove business out.  They bankrupt &#8212; they turned Detroit from a first-world city into a third-world city in one generation.  If the Republicans held their convention in Detroit, they&#8217;d have a symbol to shove in the Democrats&#8217; faces and shut them up about Republican wars on women and minorities.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> You know, I&#8217;ve known you a long time.  A real long time.  You&#8217;re really, really worked up about how bad things are.  And I got to be honest &#8212; I share your emotion here.  Because I think we&#8217;re losing our country.  You say that, and people say &#8212; you know, you listen &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> We are losing our country, rapidly.  Obamacare &#8212; what is Obamacare about?  Why don&#8217;t Republicans mention this?  It’s a fundamental attack on individual freedom. Republicans need to make their argument a moral argument, the way the Democrats do.  The Democrats portray Republicans as evil.  Until Republicans effectively portray Democrats as evil, they will be outgunned in any political contest.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> So what else do you think they should do?</p>
<p>David Horowitz: Obamacare is a major transformation of the country.  The government can now tell you that you have to buy their health insurance.  You have four choices.  Someday, it may be one choice, if they get their single payer system. Then they also tell you, if you&#8217;ve worked hard and played by the rules, we&#8217;re going to stick our hands in your pockets and take money out of it to subsidize people who haven&#8217;t worked hard, who haven&#8217;t played by the rules.</p>
<p>This is a fundamental transformation of America, Obamacare.  And I just don&#8217;t see Republicans fighting the moral issue.  The conservative movement is built on the idea of freedom, individual freedom.  And you don&#8217;t hear that rhetoric.  And you need to hear it in these election battles.</p>
<p>My book, &#8220;Take No Prisoners&#8221; &#8212; goes over all of this, chapter and verse &#8212; how to do it.  And it&#8217;s just out today, and I thank you for &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Boy, you&#8217;re out of breath.  Are you okay?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> I am out of breath. One of the reasons I&#8217;m so angry is I&#8217;m 75 &#8212; you know, I&#8217;ve been saying this for 20 years; Republicans don&#8217;t listen.  I&#8217;ve watched the country slipping away.  You know, I don&#8217;t know what to say.  I would never have believed it could happen so rapidly as it&#8217;s happening now.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Yeah.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> But we are now no longer a power in the world.  And that means that the bad guys are having a field day.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>75</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Black Book of the American Left, Volume II</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/janice-fiamengo/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-ii/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-ii</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/janice-fiamengo/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-ii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 04:56:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Janice Fiamengo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Book of the American Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janice Fiamengo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rare intellectual strengths characterize the second volume of David Horowitz’s collected writings.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/bb45.gif"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225737" alt="bb45" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/bb45.gif" width="252" height="360" /></a><strong></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>[To order <i>The Black Book of the American Left: Volume 2 &#8212; The Progressives</i>, <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/volume-ii/">click here</a>. </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>We encourage our readers to visit our new website, <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com,</a>  which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1 and 2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.]</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>This article is reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/">PJ Media.</a></strong></p>
<p>The first volume of David Horowitz’s nine-volume <i>The Black Book of the American Left</i> focused on the author’s personal journey out of the leftist faith and its community of adherents — a courageous, disorienting rejection of all he had once believed — and into a reasoned and pragmatic conservatism that has been his creed ever since. Analyzing the various forms of delusion, bad faith, and pathological self-hatred that leftism inspires and demands, the essays in that volume chronicled Horowitz’s decades-long crusade to unmask progressive fantasies to reveal their devastating real-world consequences. In documenting the monumental failures of leftist regimes and the illogic of leftist ideology, Horowitz’s writings have made a vital contribution to the conservative movement in America.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I9ISKIO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=0802120679&amp;creativeASIN=1595547959&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=pjmedia-20">second volume</a> of his oeuvre, Horowitz turns his attention to individual progressive, showcasing the destructive extremism and Communist roots of their so-called liberal beliefs (actually the opposite of “liberal” in both philosophy and political tactics) and revealing the deep anti-Americanism that has become a part of the Democratic agenda. Here, Horowitz documents the historical falsifications and distortions of purpose necessary to the left’s salvationist program. In essay after essay, his acute understanding of the leftist passions he once shared is arrestingly on display.</p>
<p>One of the particular strengths of Horowitz’s writing is his commitment to disabusing fellow conservatives and genuine liberals of false notions regarding leftists’ aims and beliefs. To this end, he is expert at revealing the obfuscatory rhetoric, deceptive use of terms, and outright falsehoods that are not only an occasional tactic but in fact an intrinsic feature of the progressive program. Thus Columbia University history professor Eric Foner, a founding member of Historians Against the War [in Iraq], can declare himself a “patriot” according to Paul Robeson’s definition that “The patriot is the person who is never satisfied with his country.”</p>
<p>Such a statement might seem to justify a stance of loyal opposition, and bolster Foner’s righteous self-image as a man of conscience. It takes a Horowitz to reveal, however, that Paul Robeson was a fanatical admirer of the Soviet Union and his attitude towards his own country was unrelentingly critical and destructive. Likewise, Professor Foner’s love of country has often been so bound up with corrosive dissatisfaction as to prevent him from taking its side when under attack. Only in the Alice-in-Wonderland progressive lexicon can a willingness — even eagerness — to see one’s country defeated by totalitarian foes be classed as a patriotic emotion.</p>
<p>As Horowitz demonstrates throughout this collection — chronicling in vivid detail the upside-down logic of so many leftist activists and intellectuals — such justifications are straight out of the Communist playbook, by which two generations of radicals “rationalized their disloyalty to America as a higher loyalty to the socialist revolution.” It is here that Horowitz’s familiarity with America’s Communist past enables him to puncture present-day progressive subterfuge. He shows how the Communist certainty that America’s future as a collectivist utopia was already determined has continued to galvanize modern progressives, for whom fanatical devotion to a future ideal, even if that means destroying a vibrant democratic nation, is indeed a higher loyalty.</p>
<p>As Horowitz reveals in his first-rate article on Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear weapons scientist who stole secrets about the U.S. nuclear program for China, and who was zealously proclaimed innocent by leftist journalist Bob Scheer, there is a significant “tolerance, sympathy, and even support for treason […] in the mainstream liberal culture.” Because leftism posits a future in which all imperfections will be abolished, the destruction of the present (imperfect) society is not only acceptable but <i>necessary</i>; and this is why, in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a significant anti-war movement could arise that focused its anger on America rather than on Islamic extremism, and that envisioned peace as occurring through the <i>disappearance</i>, not the survival, of the United States. Horowitz’s ability to reveal the commitment to America’s destruction at the bottom of progressives’ benign-seeming and peace-proclaiming bafflegab is a particularly salient contribution to conservatism.</p>
<p>Equally crucial is his tracing of the continuities between the Old Left and the New Left. What has changed about the progressive faith since the collapse of the Soviet Union is not any diminishment of revolutionary commitment, but instead an increase of utopian fervor in proportion to the abandonment of specific social and economic blueprints for change. The ragtag collection of eco-radicals, queer and feminist militants, class warriors, anarchists, Maoists and the like who make up the anti-war and Occupy movements has become a purely nihilistic phenomenon dedicated to destroying capitalism, with no clear idea of the preferred system that would replace it. As an example, Horowitz profiles acclaimed Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm, whose last book, <i>Age of Extremes</i>, provides a detailed defense of Communist ideals yet who has openly stated his continuing commitment to a project that, in his own words, “has demonstrably failed, and as I know now, was bound to fail.” What does it mean to remain committed to a system bound to fail? Through such a statement, Horowitz argues, Hobsbawm admits “the religious nature of radical beliefs” — in other words, the commitment to a world with no connection to reality.</p>
<p>Horowitz articulates the irrationality of such a commitment with salutary clarity: “So strong is the psychological need for the utopian illusion and its project of destruction, it does not matter to Hobsbawm that the noble future to which he devoted his life and talent did not work and could not have worked, or that when put into practice it created monstrous injustice.” The Left’s utopianism can countenance, and even long for, the defeat of America despite the fact (or because of the fact) that leftism can formulate no viable alternative. No wonder such beliefs are often impervious to reason.</p>
<p>In the individual profiles assembled in the volume, Horowitz documents in compelling detail the misrepresentations, aversion to reality, and vicious dishonesty that characterize many of the world’s most committed left intellectuals; and he shows, disturbingly, how their lies are allowed to pass as truth by a complicit media and academic culture. An incisive essay on Noam Chomsky, “Guru of the American Left,” picks apart the multiple distortions and shocking fabrications in <i>What Uncle Sam Really Wants</i>, Chomsky’s tendentious account of American foreign policy since the Second World War; Horowitz decisively rebuts Chomsky’s ludicrous claims concerning American pro-Nazism and U.S. support for murderous regimes. And yet Chomsky, who has justified al-Qaeda’s attacks by proclaiming the United States to be the greatest terrorist entity in the world, and who actually visited New Delhi and Islamabad after 9/11 to stir up hatred and encourage attacks on American soil, is widely lauded and influential, perhaps the most important public intellectual alive today.</p>
<p>Similarly effective and disquieting is Horowitz’s dissection of Howard Zinn’s <i>A People’s History of the United States</i>, a text used in many American history courses, which presents American national development as a sordid tale of racial evil and capitalist exploitation unparalleled in the world. Such a distorted screed can serve no educational purpose; rather, it is a tool of leftist indoctrination to guarantee that college students are taught to despise their leaders, feel ashamed of their country, and be unable to assess American achievement in comparison with that of other nations. Even more mendacious is the autobiography of Rigoberta Menchu, a much-lauded personal memoir of revolutionary struggle, which pleads the case of the Guatemalan poor and the moral necessity for Marxist revolution to redress it. As Horowitz shows, the book is a tissue of falsehoods to sway gullible western readers — especially university students, who have studied it by the thousands — to the Communist cause; media and academic collusion in the fraud has been widespread.</p>
<p>The intellectual strengths Horowitz brings to his project are, if not unique, certainly rare: a comprehensive grasp of leftist history, its movements, tactics, splinter groups, and ideological currents, combined with an analytical precision enabling him to expose, at the micro-level, the various falsehoods and murderous sleights of hand that characterize leftist arguments. Horowitz is devastatingly good both at illustrating the wide-scale destructiveness of leftist ideas and also at tracing the underhanded rhetorical stratagems in individual’s statements. His ability to clarify the layers of self-deceit and irrational hatred in platforms claiming to promote peace or concern for the poor is unvaryingly sharp. The moral urgency of his writing is articulated in bracingly clear, assured prose — shafts of truth that cut through the fog of leftist platitudes.</p>
<p>Horowitz’s own experience — both of the euphoria of leftist comradeship and of the horror of leftist betrayal — brings a human dimension to many of the essays. “The Secret Power of the Leftist Faith” explores the treatment of Christopher Hitchens by his leftist friends when he broke ranks over corruption within the Bill Clinton administration. The vituperative attacks he received, and his courage in enduring them, brought Horowitz to his defense as a (perhaps unwelcome) ally, with a cogent analysis of the ritual ex-communication reserved for dissidents from the leftist faith, “a phenomenon normal to religious cults, where purity of heart is maintained through avoiding contact with the unclean.”</p>
<p>Another memorable essay, “Guilt of the Son,” provides a riveting assessment of the self-chosen delusions of Robert Meeropol, who has spent his entire adult life defending the memory of his parents, the Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed in 1953 for passing American nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. Meeropol is a quiet young man whose childhood trauma is cause for sympathy, a fact that Horowitz acknowledges.  But the truth about the Rosenbergs’ actions — and about those who have defended them — matters far more than Meeropol’s personal psychodrama.  Tracing Meeropol’s public statements and writings over the years, Horowitz shows how Meeropol came to acquiesce in the murder of millions by doggedly defending his parents’ honor even when the question of their legal and moral guilt was decisively settled. He provides a masterly diagnosis of Meeropol’s all-too-typical double-thinking: “What matters is that they were self-declared enemies of the United States and its ruling class. This resistance makes them ‘progressives,’ servants of a worthy cause, and therefore above America’s capitalist morality and law.”</p>
<p>Noteworthy also is Horowitz’s dissenting but appreciative review of Ann Coulter’s <i>Treason</i>, one of the few occasions in this collection when Horowitz engages critically with a fellow conservative. Taking issue with exaggerations and over-claims that he sees as more characteristics of the totalitarian left than the responsible right, he provides a nuanced but uncompromising rejoinder to her sweeping denunciations.</p>
<p>Commitment to the truth of history is the keynote of this collection, a truth symptomatically abandoned by leftist sympathizers in favor of wishful thinking and disavowal of its murderous consequences. When Horowitz’s website <i>Discover the Networks</i> first went live, it was ridiculed for seeming to lump together fanatical Islamists and Marxist radicals, on the one hand, with the humane and “moderate” left-wingers, who share only <i>some</i> of the murderers’ beliefs and sympathies, on the other.</p>
<p>Responding to an angry indictment by friend Sherman Alexie, Horowitz concedes that some leftists have good qualities and intentions, but points out that such a sentimental truism provides “no way of explaining political conflicts and why some people line up consistently on one side of the arguments.” Unlike so many of his leftist opponents, Horowitz’s objective is not to claim that political differences negate the <i>humanity</i> of those on the other side of the ideological divide. Indeed, it is progressives’ very humanity — the human longing for personal and social salvation — that so compels Horowitz and about which he writes with such consistent acuity. His insight here is what leftists deny and deliberately misunderstand: “Compassionate and intelligent people often wind up supporting agendas that are neither.” Such is the simple yet profound truth at the heart of this important book.</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
<p><strong><br />
</strong><strong></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/janice-fiamengo/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-ii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Are Our Adversaries?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/who-are-our-adversaries/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=who-are-our-adversaries</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/who-are-our-adversaries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 04:55:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Book of the American Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Explaining an unusual enterprise.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/bb1.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-224051" alt="bb" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/bb1.jpg" width="188" height="269" /></a><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/">NRO Online</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>[To order <i>The Black Book of the American Left: Volume 2 &#8212; The Progressives</i>, <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/volume-ii/">click here</a>. </strong></p>
<p><strong>We encourage our readers to visit our new website &#8211;  <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com</a> – which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1 and 2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.]</strong></p>
<p>I have just published the second in a projected ten-volume series of my collected writings called <i><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1594036942">The Black Book of the American Left</a></i>. The title pays homage to <i><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0674076087">The Black Book of Communism</a></i>, a celebrated European text documenting the crimes of the 20th century’s most notorious progressive experiment. While the original <i>Black Book</i> was a one-volume affair, the literary project I have undertaken is so large as to make it unique in today’s publishing world. Outside the category of literary fiction, so far as I can tell there are no ten-volume series by living authors.</p>
<p>So what prompted me to undertake so unwieldy an enterprise, which involves editing a million and a half words and arranging them into themed volumes? The seemingly obvious answer &#8212; one my adversaries will certainly seize on &#8212; is writer’s vanity. Who would not want to see his words in print and between hard covers? The more the better. But if you take a moment to think about it, this is not an unambiguous advantage and therefore does not provide so obvious an answer.</p>
<p>Over the course of a lengthy career I have written roughly 20 full-length books, six or seven of which I consider my best work and the writing I would like others to know me by. But already the 20 volumes threaten to bury some of the better writing I have done and create problems for readers who are seeking to acquaint themselves with my ideas. Where to begin? What to leave out? And given that this is the case, why add ten more volumes, containing a million and a half words, and risk having potential readers throw up their hands and say, “This is too much for me to sort out.” So the question better asked is this: What would <i>The Black Book of the American Left</i> contain that would significantly add to the work I had already done? What would prompt others to read it, and justify the two years of labor that went into the making of it?</p>
<p>The answer is in the nature of its contents and &#8212; equally important &#8212; in concerns I have had about the way conservatives have understood the phenomenon it describes. Five years into the Obama administration, most conservatives have little idea of the depth of its malignancy, or the fact that it is the product of decades of development that has transformed the Democratic party and created, as is rapidly becoming apparent, not only America’s nightmare but the world’s as well.</p>
<p>A good place to begin this explanation is by reporting that some readers have remarked critically on the fact that the articles in these volumes, which span some 30 years, have already appeared in print and can be located by a diligent web search. Why then bother arranging them in a new subject order and collecting them in themed volumes with titles like <i>My Life &amp; Times</i>, <i>Progressives</i>,<i> The Great Betrayal</i> (Iraq), <i>Culture Wars</i>,<i> Progressive Racism</i>, and <i>The Left in the Universities</i>?</p>
<p>The answer is that these are not articles written on random subjects that happened to catch my fancy. Nor were they written as intellectual exercises that set out to explore various aspects of current issues. They are dispatches from a war zone, written to identify the nature, agendas, and long-term goals of a political movement of historic proportions that is also global in scope. Written in the heat of battle, they are here arranged in chronological order as the events took place, in order to provide a running account of the war itself.</p>
<p>The nature of these conflicts as part of an ongoing war was, in my view, scarcely recognized by conservatives at the time, and has still not fully sunk in. Conservatives have rarely approached the individual conflicts with the seriousness they deserve, describing their adversaries as “liberals” &#8212; as if they subscribed to the principles of Lockean individualism, tolerance, and political compromise. Only with the advent of the Obama administration have some conservatives begun to connect the dots of origins and outcomes and to grasp the real nature of the national transformation that their adversaries intend.</p>
<p>It is for this conservative audience &#8212; a constituency on whom the American future depends &#8212; that I undertook to put together <i>The Black Book of the American Left</i>. It is first of all a narrative map of the battles fought over the last 40 years and &#8212; it must be said – lost, almost every one. <i>The</i> <i>Black Book</i> contains a record as complete as any likely to be written of the struggle to resist a Communist-inspired Left that was not defeated in the Cold War but took advantage of the Soviet defeat to enter the American mainstream and conquer it, until today its members occupy the White House.</p>
<p>It is an often overlooked but immensely significant fact that during the Cold War the vast majority of American progressives supported the Communist enemy, working as apologists, appeasers, and enablers for a global movement openly dedicated to the destruction of their country. At the time, the progressive movement was much smaller than it is now and was opposed by mainstream Democrats whom progressives referred to derisively as “Cold War Liberals.” In 1968, progressive activists staged a riot at the Democratic Party convention. The riot was overtly designed to destroy the electoral chances of Hubert Humphrey, regarded as the Cold War Liberal in Chief because of his support for the Vietnam War.</p>
<p>The Progressive Party, was formed in 1948 to challenge the cold war liberalism of Harry Truman and was in fact controlled by the Communist Party. The so-called New Left that emerged in the Sixties did not represent a clean break with communism and was not, in fact, a “new” left but a continuation of the old. It developed a modernized, deceptive political rhetoric &#8212; calling itself “populist” and even “liberal” &#8212; but it was mobilized behind the same malicious anti-individualist, anti-capitalist, and anti-American agendas as the Communist movement from which it sprang.</p>
<p>After the convention riot of 1968, this neo-Communist Left marched off the streets and into the Democratic party, and over the next decades took commanding positions in the party’s congressional apparatus, and eventually its national leadership. As it acquired power, it gradually shifted its self- identification from “liberal” to the bolder “progressive,” a designation shared by most leaders of the Democratic Party today. The betrayal of the Vietnamese by the “Watergate” Democrats, the appeasement of Latin American Communists (now firmly entrenched throughout the hemisphere and allied with our enemy Iran), the betrayal of the Iraqis and the sabotage of the war on terror, the traducing of the civil-rights movement and its transformation into a mob led by the racial extortionists Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (the latter now the president’s chief adviser on race), the subversion of the modern research university and the conversion of its liberal-arts divisions into doctrinal institutes for training American youth in the radical party line known as political correctness, the rise of a campus fascism aligned with Islamic Jew haters and genocidal terrorists, the political undermining of the public-health system during the AIDS epidemic which led to half a million avoidable deaths &#8212; all these were crucial battles lost during the 40 years that preceded the White House reign of Barack Obama. All are documented in the pages of these volumes in week-by-week accounts of the arguments and conflicts that accompanied them.</p>
<p>The narrative of these developments is the substance of <i>The</i> <i>Black Book of the American Left</i>. Its fruit is an understanding that the movement now in motion to dismantle the American system, and bring this country to its knees, is no overnight phenomenon and is not the result of misguided idealisms or misunderstandings that can be easily repaired. The adversary cannot be dissuaded, because what drives him is a religious mission on which his identity and quest for a meaningful life depend. He can be stopped only by a political counterforce that is determined and organized, and &#8212; most importantly &#8212; that understands the gravity of the threat it faces.</p>
<p>How far are conservatives from understanding the gravity of the situation they are in? This question was brought home to me the other day as I watched Senator Tom Coburn, easily one of the most decent men in Washington, being interrogated by an unusually frustrated Brian Lamb about his friendship with Barack Obama. That Senator Coburn, a staunch conservative, would relate to the president on a personal level despite their political differences did not bother me. What bothered me was how profoundly the senator misread Obama, how he failed to understand the malice behind either his mendacity or his systematic efforts to dismantle America’s constitutional system and disarm us before our enemies. “He has good intentions,” Coburn assured the exasperated Lamb.</p>
<p>In this exchange, Senator Coburn was the picture of American innocence, unable to connect the contempt Obama has shown for the American people and their civil order with his readiness to betray America’s troops in the field and its interests abroad, with his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and appeasement of Iranian Hitlerites, with his supine posture toward Russian aggression in the heart of Europe. Conservatives’ conflict with Obama is not about different understandings of the facts among colleagues guided by good intentions.</p>
<p>I wanted to ask Coburn whether he thinks the sadistic murderer Fidel Castro, who has turned his nation into an island prison, is also possessed of good intentions and human graces. The director Steven Spielberg, himself a good man, called the eight hours he spent with Castro “the greatest day of my life.” Does this flapdoodle have any real-world significance when it comes to dealing with the radical Left? Unless they are Islamic fanatics, the zealots of the Left do not usually come at you as fire-breathing demons. They come to help. Do you think for a moment that Castro could carry on those nine-hour speeches about Cuba’s glorious socialist achievements if he did not at least half-believe his own fantasies? Obama and Castro are socialist missionaries. For that very reason, the evil they do far exceeds anything achievable by tinhorn tyrants. They are advocates of a cause that turns a blind eye toward the millions of corpses and the wrecked continents of the recent past while attacking the democratic foundations of what remains of a free-market, free-world community of nations, beginning with Israel and the United States. That is their evil and their crime: their will to do it all over again, as if the human calamities they inspired never took place.</p>
<p><i>The</i> <i>Black Book of the American Left</i> is a look into the psyche of these missionaries through the battles they have waged over the last 40 years &#8212; battles that have brought them into the command structures of the American leviathan. It provides a picture of how they think and it analyzes the why; it draws aside the veil of “good intentions” to reveal the malice underneath. That is its utility, and the main reason I am putting these volumes together. But it would not be candid of me if I did not mention another. By way of explication, I will quote from the general introduction to the work:</p>
<blockquote><p>It is almost a certainty that no other “book” will be written like this one, since it can only have been the work of someone born into the Left and condemned Ahab-like to pursue it in an attempt to comprehend it. Yet it is not simply a project of monomania, as my adversaries will suggest, but of discovery &#8212; an attempt not only to understand a movement but to explore its roots in individual lives, including my own. While I hope this book may be useful to those fighting to defend individual freedom and free markets, I do not deceive myself into believing that I have finally set the harpoon into the leviathan, a feat that is ultimately not possible. Progressivism is fundamentally a religious faith, which meets the same eternal human needs as traditional faiths, and for that reason will be with us always. In the last analysis, the progressive faith is a Gnosticism that can only be held at bay but never finally beaten back to earth.</p></blockquote>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em> <b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></strong></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.  </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/who-are-our-adversaries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On Horowitz&#8217;s New Book: Progressives</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-hollander/on-horowitzs-new-book-progressives/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=on-horowitzs-new-book-progressives</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-hollander/on-horowitzs-new-book-progressives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 04:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Hollander]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Hollander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Black Book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vol. 2]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=220862</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With a commentary by the author.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bb1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-220869" alt="bb" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bb1.jpg" width="152" height="218" /></a><strong>[To order <i>The Black Book of the American Left: Volume 2 &#8212; The Progressives</i>, <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/volume-ii/">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>We encourage our readers to visit our new website, <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com, </a>which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1 and 2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.]</strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="center">I.</p>
<p>David Horowitz is one of the rare human beings, and handful of former Sixties radicals, who made an unequivocal break with his longstanding political beliefs and commitments. Unlike many former radicals who renounced <i>some</i> of the questionable means used in the pursuit of their political agenda but refused to distance themselves from the purported ideals, Horowitz rejected the ideals as well. In the meantime, most of the former Sixties radicals, or even some Sixties moderates, have continued to cling nostalgically to what they consider to be admirable goals embedded in their youthful idealism and legitimated by the irresistible appeal of good intentions.</p>
<p>Horowitz can claim further distinction on account of being an exceptionally knowledgeable guide to all varieties of the American left and his understanding of these movements and the mentalities of their adherents. It helps that he has been familiar with many individuals representing or associated with the same movements. Also unusual, even among the fully disillusioned, that ever since his break with his political past, Horowitz has devoted his life to renouncing and combating his former political illusions, commitments and affiliations. In doing so he was willing to risk the over-politicization of his own life, and the weakening of the boundaries between the personal and the political realm. He has also made it easier for his many critics to claim that his crusading spirit bears some resemblance to those of his former comrades and adversaries.</p>
<p>For reasons not obvious, more of the former supporters of the Soviet Union (of <i>The God That Failed</i> variety) and of Western communist movements of the past were willing and able to reexamine and publicly discard their previous convictions and illusions than those of the Sixties generation. The latter, while distancing themselves from the Soviet model, idealized Third World communist systems such as those of China, Cuba and North Vietnam. I am not sure why that has been the case but I surmise that since the Sixties radicals had more widespread and enduring subcultural or group support (especially on the campuses) than their predecessors of the 1930s, they had a lesser need to reexamine and reevaluate their beliefs. It is always easier to persist in convictions, even in wrongheaded ones, if they are widely shared. Moreover, the agenda of the Sixties radicals was broader, encompassing not only sympathy for the idealized and misperceived communist systems noted above, but also popular domestic causes such as the anti-Vietnam war protest, civil rights and women’s liberation. The presence of this large, supportive, quasi-communal subculture made it easier to squelch the impulse to engage in political soul-searching or “second thoughts.” As Horowitz puts it,</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he secret of the left’s longevity, its ability to withstand the discrediting of its idea, to ignore the millions of its victims, and thus to renew itself in the next generation&#8230;is the creation of a culture&#8230;and of a living community that perpetuates its myths&#8230;In 2003, the Rosenberg grandchildren can take pride in their heritage a being the heirs of Communists and spies, and receive encouragement and praise from &#8220;an international community of support.” [267-268]</p></blockquote>
<p>The Sixties radicals also differed from their political predecessors by entertaining a deeper and durable romantic rejection of modernity, and not only of capitalism, as well as a distinctive anti-Americanism. Horowitz writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>A crucial aspect of the worldview of American radicals is not only the monstrous nature of America’s essence but the belief in American omnipotence&#8230; Radicals never see America as reacting to a threat that cannot be ignored, or to a set of circumstances whose outcome it cannot determine. [81]</p></blockquote>
<p>These radicals have also shared a conception of the United States similar to that held by some 19<sup>th</sup> century Russian philosophers, as well as Soviet ideologues and their present-day descendants, namely that “The West is &#8230;rotten to the core and weak yet so powerful that it can be blamed for everything that goes wrong.” <sup><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=220862&amp;action=edit#_ftn1">1</a></sup></p>
<p>Horowitz was capable of distancing himself from the sustaining embrace of discredited beliefs provided by the surviving subcultures of the Sixties and he paid (I presume) both an emotional and more tangible price for doing so. Many of his former radical colleagues have never forgiven his rejection of their animating beliefs and source of identity. His unembarrassed renunciation of sacrosanct political beliefs &#8212; at once liberating and wrenching &#8212; has also reduced, or more likely eliminated, many employment opportunities especially in the academic world. At last, it is always difficult, under any circumstances, to fundamentally alter or discard strongly held beliefs and causes which made one’s life meaningful and used to be a major source of one’s sense of identity.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">II.</p>
<p>This collection of previously published writings has several clearly articulated themes and propositions which lend coherence (and sometimes repetitiousness) to the volume. Among them is the basic and important point that the radical left has been motivated and sustained by secular-religious beliefs and this accounts for its persistence in the face of disconfirming realities, foremost the collapse of “actually existing” communist (i.e. state socialist) systems. Horowitz writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he community of the left is a community of meaning, and is bound by ties that are fundamentally religious. For the non-religious, politics is the art of managing the possible. For the left, it is the path to social and personal redemption&#8230;For the left, politics is ultimately not about practical options on which reasonable people may reasonably differ. It is about moral choices that define us as human. It is about taking sides in a war that will decide the future of mankind&#8230; [159]</p></blockquote>
<p>Horowitz correctly observes that,</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Our century was a stage for the destructive drama of a secular religious faith called socialism, inspired by dreams of a social redemption that would be achieved by human agency, through the force of politics and the state. [189]</span></p></blockquote>
<p>The secular religious attitudes of the left (and I mean radical left, not “left” in general &#8212; a distinction Horowitz does not always make) and future orientation go together and further help to explain the handling of the frequent conflict between ends and means. Horowitz writes:</p>
<blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The belief in a perfect future inevitably inspires a passionate and otherwise inexplicable hatred towards the imperfect present&#8230; [3] In this surreal vision, once the chains of oppression had been removed&#8230;the natural goodness of &#8220;the people&#8221; would assert itself and the traditional dilemmas of power would no longer obtain. [17]</span></p></blockquote>
<p>Eric Hobsbawm, the widely revered historian, exemplified these attitudes with startling clarity as he refused to reject the Soviet system even after he acknowledged its moral, political and economic failures. As Horowitz explains:</p>
<blockquote><p>[H]is belief in an alternate world to replace the one into which he was born is not connected to any reality. It is an acknowledgment &#8211; albeit unintended &#8211; of the religious nature of radical belief. [32]</p></blockquote>
<p>Hobsbawm’s case is all the more noteworthy since unlike many other leftist sympathizers with the Soviet system he was well aware of its resounding failure to realize its founding ideals. He nonetheless admitted that in spite of all he knew, “‘To this day I notice myself treating the memory and tradition of the USSR with an indulgence and tenderness.’” [31] George Lukacs, the Hungarian Marxist philosopher, provides a similar example of a distinguished intellectual, thoroughly familiar with the failures and moral atrocities of the Soviet system, who nonetheless harbored a lifelong bond of affection for it that he was unable to sever.</p>
<p>Horowitz further illustrates the central place of secular religious beliefs in the sense of the identity of these true believers by quoting a revealing passage from the “political autobiography” of the radical feminist Gerda Lerner, who used to be a “card carrying” communist and subsequently prominent New Leftist. She wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>“‘Like all true believers, I believed as I did because I needed to believe: in a utopian vision of the future, in the possibility of human perfectibility&#8230;And I still need that belief, even if the particular vision I had embraced turned to ashes.’” [37]</p></blockquote>
<p>Another major theme of these writings is the continuity between the Old and the New Left, and their defining beliefs. Horowitz argues that “by the end of the decade [of the sixties] the ‘new’ left had become indistinguishable from the old&#8230;” [41] This is an overstatement. Doubtless, both movements shared an unqualified rejection of their own society and detestation of capitalism, as well as sympathy for any state or movement that denounced or challenged their society and capitalism. However, there have also been notable and significant differences.</p>
<p>For one thing, the New Left lost interest in the Soviet system and was (mildly) critical of it. It embraced a romantic rejection of modernity (not just capitalism) and a contradictory mix of a self-indulgent individualism and &#8212; what it considered &#8212; nurturing collectivism. Unlike the beliefs and institutional arrangements favored by the Old Left, there was no trace of puritanism in the New. The radical left of the Sixties shared with Georges Bataile, the French philosopher, a “longing for community and his glorification of transgression &#8211; acts of excess that would disrupt the status quo.” <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=220862&amp;action=edit#_ftn2"><sup>2</sup></a> Nor was the New Left organizationally linked to any existing communist state or organization, unlike its predecessor that was tied to the Communist Party of the U.S. and its front organizations.</p>
<p>Horowitz also makes the point that the terms “left” and “liberal” have become indistinguishable as the New Left came to usurp the liberal designation wishing to discard the “left” appellation that the failed communist systems brought into disrepute. The problem with this argument is that the left is not monolithic (as Horowitz well knows) and there has always been a moderate, anti-communist left, including social-democrats, that can justifiably claim the liberal mantle and not only as a public relations camouflage. Reading these essays I often felt that whenever critical reference was made to the left it was the radical left Horowitz had in mind.</p>
<p>These observations connect with another major proposition of the volume, namely, that mainstream, liberal American culture has absorbed and accommodated numerous left-wing positions and attitudes which can be traced to the protest movements and spirit of the Sixties. This is an important assertion and the circumstances referred to are familiar to all those who taught at a college or university since the late 1960s or early 1970s. It has indeed been the case that</p>
<blockquote><p>entire fields &#8211; &#8220;Whiteness Studies,&#8221; &#8220;Cultural Studies,&#8221; &#8220;Women’s Studies,&#8221; &#8220;African-American Studies,&#8221; &#8220;American Studies,&#8221; and &#8220;Peace Studies,&#8221;&#8230; are now principally devoted to this radical assault on American culture and society&#8230; [72]</p></blockquote>
<p>Numerous further manifestations of these trends are available and noted by the author. The academic celebrity status of Angela Davis is one of them. As few will recall she was the vice-presidential candidate of the American Communist Party in 1980 and 1984, received the Lenin Prize in 1979 and visited the Soviet Union under Brezhnev in the same year where she received a hero’s welcome. None of this cast a shadow on her celebration at Dartmouth College (among other places). [97-103] Even more astounding that, as Horowitz recalls, Tom Hayden, the leading Sixties radical and sometime advocate of guerilla warfare in the United States, was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Carter. [114, 5]</p>
<p>There is also the case of the late Herbert Aptheker, a major figure and “theoretician” of the American Communist Party showered with honors and appointments on numerous colleges campuses including the law school of the University of California and Columbia University. Howard Zinn’s vitriolic debunking history of the United States sold over a million hardback copies and has been the major text in countless colleges and high schools. [23] Noam Chomsky’s immense popularity on the campuses (at home as well as abroad) is another case in point. He is also said to be “one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities.” [57]</p>
<p>It is indisputable that, as Horowitz writes, “for 40 years Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet, and speech after speech with one message&#8230;alone: America is the Great Satan, the fount of evil in this world.” [223-224] At the same time it is hard to determine whether or not Chomsky has actually radicalized his audiences, or his popularity reflects an already existing predisposition and receptivity to his messages. It should also be noted that he has been subjected to criticism by some moderate leftists and liberals as well.</p>
<p>The popularity of Oliver Stone’s movies, abounding in absurd conspiratorial scenarios and ascribing a wide variety of evil to the United States are also among the symptoms of malaise enumerated by Horowitz. Not surprisingly, his latest movie called “My Friend Hugo” glorifies the late Chavez of Venezuela.</p>
<p>Another important proposition put forward in his book is that the left, or rather, the radical left, learned little from the collapse of Soviet communism and from the huge amounts of information about the suffering the pursuit of its policies led to. Such information had been available well before its demise, as were similar accumulations of evidence testifying to the profound moral and institutional defects of other communist systems. Horowitz writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he collapse of the Communist states and the bankruptcy of their Marxist economies ought to have thrown the left into a profound crisis of faith. It should have caused radicals to rethink their Marxist critique of democratic capitalism and the ideas about the revolutionary future&#8230;It should have caused them to re-evaluate &#8230;their support for regimes that had murdered tens of millions and oppressed hundreds of millions of more. But such reassessments did not take place. [27]</p></blockquote>
<p>I made a similar point in some of my writings, but on further reflection I came to the conclusion that both Horowitz and myself somewhat overstated the case. The left, or elements of it (for example, people like Christopher Hitchens or Julius Lester, the former black radical, among others) did learn <i>something</i>. It has been that it was a serious error to pin their hopes for a better world and improved human beings on the fraudulent claims of repressive and regimented states such as the former Soviet Union or communist China and on their ideological pieties. But even if elements of the left developed such reservations about the former communist systems they have remained reluctant to modify their views of the United States, capitalism, and many Western cultural values and traditions. That is to say, their adversarial disposition has been preserved largely intact. Barbara Ehrenreich justifies this attitude &#8212; popular on the radical left &#8212; as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>“‘As a responsible radical, I believe our first responsibility is toward evil close to home, and stopping that. In any event, I’m more worried in the long run about the belligerence of George Bush than of Saddam Hussein.’” [110-111]</p></blockquote>
<p>The same underlying disposition also found expression in the recent support for political systems such as Venezuela under Chavez, the implacable hostility towards Israel, and more generally, in giving the benefit of the doubt to any social-political movement that has recycled some Marxist ideals and rejects capitalism, and its alleged bulwark, the United States, holding it responsible for every global economic, social or political problem.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most important, that many radical leftists continue to harbor the hope that there are political-institutional remedies and solutions for personal problems, that the discontents of modernity and the contradictory desires of human beings may one day be taken care of by political movements and systems which profess good intentions.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">III.</p>
<p>I have some minor quibbles and disagreements to register. Mark Kramer is not one of the authors of the <i>Black Books of Communism, </i>as stated in a footnote on page 25. He was its translator. It is arguable that the Soviet Union was “<i>the</i> most oppressive and repulsive empire in human history.” [30] (My emphasis.) Was it worse than Mao’s China or Nazi Germany? “One of the most&#8230;” would have been a safer assertion.</p>
<p>The suggestion that “our most privileged and educated youth&#8230; [had] come to despise their own nation&#8230;.with a ferocious passion&#8230;” [223] also calls for qualification. A “large or substantial portion” thereof would have been less debatable. In a seemingly similar frame of mind Horowitz quotes with apparent approval the assertion of Martin Amis that “the overwhelming majority of intellectuals everywhere&#8230; colluded in the enslavement, death and&#8230;misery of hundreds of millions of socialist citizens.” [249] There is no evidence to support such a sweeping assertion and no reliable way to generalize about the attitudes and the alleged “collusion” of the “overwhelming majority of intellectuals.”</p>
<p>I would also hesitate to call socialism “a theory of economic theft,” or make other generalizations about it since there are considerable differences between the state socialism of the Soviet kind and the social democratic socialism that used to prevail in Scandinavian countries.</p>
<p>I am dubious about the proposition that “leftwing intellectuals like Hitchens and Berman&#8230;still nourish an enthusiasm for the utopian chimera.” [255] In the first place I am not sure about the unqualified, present-tense attribution of “leftwing” to them (even as it applies to Hitchens before his death). I doubt even more strongly that of late (if ever) they harbored utopian and revolutionary longings. True enough, Hitchens, even after the shift in his political worldview, had a soft spot for Trotsky but otherwise made a decisive and public break with his own leftism. More generally I am inclined to disagree with the suggestion that Hitchens “never did leave the left” [153] or that he “retain[ed] his progressive bona fides.” [6] He was actually denounced and vilified by many of his erstwhile comrades-in-arms, as Horowitz notes elsewhere in the same volume. I knew Hitchens (though not well) and spoke to him several times about his political attitudes and evolution and wrote about him.<a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=220862&amp;action=edit#_ftn3"><sup>3</sup></a> That does not mean that I applaud all his political judgments and ideas (including his vehement and intolerant attacks on religion); nor do I consider myself an authority on his political convictions and transformations.</p>
<p>I would also be reluctant to lump together, as Horowitz does, Hobsbawm, Chomsky, and Todd Gitlin as “Stalinist intellectuals” even if they shared (different degrees of) a revulsion of America. The three of them are different not only in their political outlook and rhetoric but professional accomplishments as well. Hobsbawm’s was a competent historian notwithstanding his deluded affection for the Soviet Union and his long membership in the British Communist Party. As far as I know his rhetoric never came close to the vilifications and demagoguery of Chomsky who abandoned his work as a linguist decades ago to specialize in the obsessive demonization of the United States and Israel. In turn, Gitlin considerably modified his devotion to Sixties radicalism and rejected a good deal of it. Calling all of them “Stalinist” unhappily reminds me of the misuse of “fascist” similarly used to definitively discredit.</p>
<p>Another far-fetched assertion I came upon is that “deep in their hearts the radicals regarded the triumphs of the civil-rights movement as worrisome subversions of their real agendas” [91] which were “revolutionary.” [92] I don’t think that all, or most radicals necessarily subordinated the goals of the civil rights movement to their more far reaching “revolutionary” agendas.</p>
<p>Although I criticized Horowitz for insufficiently distinguishing among different kinds of leftists and at times blurring the line between different types of socialism it needs to be pointed out that this volume also includes a critique of Anne Coulter advising conservatives not to follow her “path.” Horowitz writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>It is important for conservatives to make distinctions between those on the left who were (and are) traitors or self-conceived enemies of the United States, those who were (and are) the fellow travelers of enemies of the United States, and those who are neither traitors, nor enemies, nor friends and protectors of the enemies, but are American patriots who disagree with conservatives over policy issues. [275]</p></blockquote>
<p>Notwithstanding the reservations expressed above this collection is an informative and authentic guide to the American radical left and some of its animating beliefs by an author who used to be a very vocal part of it.</p>
<p><b>Notes:</b></p>
<p><sup>1</sup> David Brooks: “Putin Can’t Stop,” <i>New York Times</i>, March 4, 2014.<br />
<sup>2</sup> Richard Wolin: <i>The Seduction of Unreason,</i> Princeton NJ, 2004, p. 163.<br />
<sup>3</sup> See Paul Hollander: <i>The End of Commitment: Intellectuals, Revolutionaries,  and Political Morality</i>, Chicago 2006.  The same book also examined the political transformation  of David Horowitz.</p>
<p>***************</p>
<p><b><i>David Horowitz replies:</i></b></p>
<p>I want to thank Paul Hollander for a thoughtful review of Volume II of <i>The Black Book of the American Left</i>: <i>Progressives. </i>Because it appears in a magazine I publish I am taking the liberty of responding to some of his critical points, mainly because if I do not they may be seized upon by my detractors on the left as observations I do not challenge. Let me say at the outset that many of the points which Hollander calls quibbles are differences of opinion about which the reader can easily form an opinion, and are not substantive in a way that concerns me.</p>
<p>The first and most important of the claims that do concern me is Hollander&#8217;s suggestion that I lump together as &#8220;Stalinist intellectuals&#8221; Hobsbawm, Chomsky and Gitlin. In fact I do not. In the essay titled &#8220;The Mind of the Left,&#8221; which provides extended profiles of these three figures, I go out of my way to say that Gitlin is a sharp critic of Chomsky, while the section on Chomsky is headlined &#8220;The Nihilist Left,&#8221; of which Chomsky is the exemplar. Hollander&#8217;s mistake comes from an error that appears late in the text &#8212; several hundred pages after the aforementioned profiles &#8212; in a sentence referring to &#8220;The Mind of the Left,&#8221; which says that in it I &#8220;traced the continuities in radical thought from the generation of Stalinist intellectuals like Eric Hobsawm [to New Left intellectuals like] Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin.&#8221; The words in brackets were dropped from the published text but anyone reading &#8220;The Mind of the Left&#8221; would (or should) know exactly what I meant.</p>
<p>Hollander says that he would hesitate to call socialism &#8220;a theory of economic theft&#8221; as I do. Why? What is economic redistribution but the taking of the earned fruits of one segment of the population and giving it to those who haven&#8217;t earned it? I wrote this as a riposte to the socialist claim that &#8220;property is theft.&#8221; Obviously property is the legal protection of individual freedom and the rights of the individual to the fruits of his labor. Which is why an economic theory to abolish property is a theory of economic theft.</p>
<p>Hollander calls &#8220;far-fetched&#8221; my assertion that “deep in their hearts the radicals regarded the triumphs of the civil-rights movement as worrisome subversions of their real agendas.” As one of those radicals at the time, I know what I am talking about. The left turned its back on King after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts. Not a single New Left leader joined King&#8217;s last campaigns including the one in which he was killed. That is because the left did not want blacks to be integrated into the American system as King advocated. Instead the left supported racists (euphemistically referred to as &#8220;separatists&#8221;) like Stokeley Carmichael specifically for this reason. Far from my assertion being &#8220;far-fetched,&#8221; it is Hollander&#8217;s supposition that the left had good intentions that requires explanation. The whole post-King history of the civil rights movement which quickly degenerated into a racial assault on American values and in particular on the racial neutrality that was the core of King&#8217;s program is unintelligible if the left did not regard King&#8217;s message as troubling and seek to subvert it.</p>
<p>On the matter of Hitchens, Hollander is entitled to his opinion that Christopher left the left but a simple survey of the crowd at his memorial and the speakers at the international tribute to him in a specially televised event from London would say otherwise. I knew Christopher a lot better than Hollander and I have written a long appreciation of him which set out to define his complex political persona in an essay not in this volume. It is called &#8220;<a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/">The Two Christophers: Or the Importance of Second Thoughts</a>.&#8221; Readers can find it in my archive on this website or in my book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Portraits-Destructive-David-Horowitz/dp/1596988126"><i>Radicals: A Destructive Passion</i></a><i>.</i></p>
<p>In closing I want to thank Paul Hollander for stimulating these thoughts and for providing an insightful review of my book.</p>
<p><b><i>Paul Hollander responds:</i></b></p>
<p>My comment on &#8220;lumping together&#8221; Chomsky, Gitlin and Hobsbawm was based on a sentence on page 312 of this book. I understand now that in an earlier essay David Horowitz made clear the differences among these three authors but the volume I reviewed did not include that essay.</p>
<p>I certainly don’t believe that &#8220;property is theft,&#8221; nor do I believe that progressive income taxes are theft. Likewise I don’t believe &#8212; and I wonder if Horowitz does &#8212; that the right to the &#8220;earned fruits&#8221; of one’s labor is, or ought to be, unconditional. If so, no taxes could ever be collected. The difficult question is how far the state should, or could go to in its attempts to equalize opportunities, and reduce inequalities by the use of the revenues it collects (and redistributes) and by other means. I don’t believe that equality of condition can ever be accomplished and I<i> </i>am also well aware that zealous attempts to do so can have a wide range of undesirable side effects and unintended consequences (including the growth of coercive bureaucracies). But I also believe that extreme inequalities are morally and socially problematic and undesirable. It is not easy to reconcile these two positions.</p>
<p>Socialist systems of the moderate, or social-democratic kind had no intention to &#8220;abolish property.&#8221;</p>
<p>I am sure that David Horowitz correctly argues that elements of the radical left preferred the Black Panthers, Malcolm X or Stokely Carmichael to Martin Luther King and other moderate civil rights leaders. I took issue with what struck me as an over-generalization about the radical left’s &#8220;real agenda&#8221; that entailed a cynical devaluation of civil rights compelled by its far reaching revolutionary aspirations including separatism. Separatism, unwelcome as it is, does not necessarily conflict with the pursuit of civil rights.</p>
<p>It is very likely that David Horowitz knew Hitchens far better than I and read some of his writings I did not, and therefore is in a better position to assess the extent and depth of his political transformations and the remaining bonds with his youthful commitments and allegiances. For example I don’t know (and would like to know) how Hitchens’ view of Israel evolved following, and associated with, his break with Edward Said.</p>
<p>&#8220;A simple survey of the crowds&#8221; who attended Hitchens’ memorial service and the speeches made on the occasion are not necessarily reliable indicators of the nature, or durability of the political beliefs of Hitchens; their presence does not prove that their convictions and those of Hitchens late in his life converged. On the other hand, the volume, intensity and virulence of his denunciation by erstwhile comrades-in-arms (some of whom might have attended the same funeral) suggest that his &#8220;heretical&#8221; political positions and transformation were genuine and far-reaching.</p>
<p>How much of his earlier political beliefs and attitudes Hitchens might have retained in ripe middle age is a matter that leaves room for speculation, disagreement and varied interpretations.</p>
<p><b><i>David Horowitz replies:</i></b></p>
<p>Not to carry on this dialogue ad infinitum I will just address Paul&#8217;s objection to my statement that &#8220;socialism is theft.&#8221; Taxation to support community goods is not socialism in my book. Socialism is taxation designed to redistribute income, that is to take earned income from one element of the population and give it to another deemed deserving by whoever controls the state. And that is theft.</p>
<div style="text-align: left;" align="center">
<p>*<br />
<em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em> <b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></strong><br />
<b></b></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-hollander/on-horowitzs-new-book-progressives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>George Washington’s Spies &#8212; How They Saved the American Revolution</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-schnee/george-washingtons-spies-how-they-saved-the-american-revolution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=george-washingtons-spies-how-they-saved-the-american-revolution</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-schnee/george-washingtons-spies-how-they-saved-the-american-revolution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 05:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Schnee]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brian Kilmeade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Washington's Secret Six-The Spy Ring that Saved the American Revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wednesday morning club]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=217946</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brian Kilmeade gives a riveting presentation on his new book to the Wednesday Morning Club.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/hj.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-217951" alt="hj" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/hj.jpg" width="183" height="276" /></a>&#8220;Gentlemen do not read each other&#8217;s mail&#8221; declared Henry L. Stimson when, as Secretary of State in 1929, he promptly closed the cryptanalysis department of the United States.</p>
<p>Had George Washington been inhibited by such diplomatic niceties, it is likely he would have lost the revolutionary war. This possibility was described by Brian Kilmeade, who cohosts Fox News Channel&#8217;s morning show Fox &amp; Friends, when he spoke about his new book &#8220;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/George-Washingtons-Secret-Six-Revolution/dp/159523103X">George Washington&#8217;s Secret Six-The Spy Ring that Saved the American Revolution</a>&#8221; at the David Horowitz Freedom Center&#8217;s Wednesday Morning Club at the Beverly Hills Hotel on January 16th.</p>
<p>During a riveting presentation, Kilmeade described the activities of Washington&#8217;s group of disparate patriots who frequently risked certain death over many years in order to secure victory against Great Britain, the world&#8217;s only real superpower at the time. Almost nothing was known of them or their activities until a horde of letters was discovered in 1929 and handed over to Long Island&#8217;s premier historian, Morton Pennypacker, for study and analysis.</p>
<p>The letters revealed the identities of the Culper Spy Ring. It included Robert Townsend, a Quaker merchant and reporter; Austin Roe, a tavern keeper; Caleb Brewster, a longshoreman who ferried messages between Connecticut and New York; Abraham Woodhull, a Long Island bachelor with business and family reasons for traveling to Manhattan; James Rivington, the owner of a swanky coffeehouse and print shop where high-ranking British Officers congregated to gossip about secret plans and operations; and Agent 355, a woman whose identity is still unknown but who used her charm to coax information out of British officers.</p>
<p>These formerly unknown warriors were responsible for uncovering Benedict Arnold&#8217;s plot to surrender West Point to the British and exposing him as a traitor. They also found out that the British intended to flood the country with counterfeit American money. Washington frustrated this scheme when he issued a proclamation declaring all American currency in circulation up to 1778 would be honored. After that date new American currency was printed. They were also adept at disinformation, making sure that false maps and battle plans fell into the hands of the British. The spy ring also used encryption. New York was 56, George Washington was 711 and the mystery female spy was known as 355. Other secret codes and ciphers were employed. Today, a history of their means and methods is taught to all new recruits at the CIA.</p>
<p>Kilmeade pointed out that these were ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things, not for public adulation or glory but because they believed in their cause, which, as it turned out, became the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever seen and of which we are the fortunate beneficiaries. It is pleasing to know that with the publication of Kilmeade&#8217;s book these selfless patriots have now received the recognition they never sought but richly deserve.</p>
<p>Major George Beckwith, a British Intelligence office from 1782-1783, noted, &#8220;Washington did not really outfight the British, he simply outspied us.&#8221; By 1940, when he was Secretary of War, Henry Stimson no longer had any qualms about cryptanalysis and came to rely on it in every aspect. Perhaps he had come to realize that in a time of &#8220;total war&#8221; it was not &#8220;gentlemen&#8221; that were needed but American patriots willing to risk all and silently put themselves in harm&#8217;s way as in the founding years of his country.</p>
<p>Had these brave individuals not taken up that significant task, it may be that the America we know and love would have been very different.</p>
<p><em>Paul Schnee served as the Western Regional Director of the Zionist Organization of America in 2010 and is now the President of their Los Angeles chapter. His blog is: Paulschnee.com where he comments on current affairs.</em></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-schnee/george-washingtons-spies-how-they-saved-the-american-revolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Witness</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jay-nordlinger/a-witness/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-witness</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jay-nordlinger/a-witness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 05:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jay Nordlinger]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=216652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A conservative appreciation of David Horowitz.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lpk.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-216665" alt="lpk" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lpk-450x293.jpg" width="284" height="185" /></a>Originally published by <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368222/witness-part-i-jay-nordlinger">National Review Online.</a><br />
</strong></em></p>
<p>I’ll tell you what the “smart” view of David is: He was a radical of the Left who became a radical of the Right. He was an extremist then and is an extremist now, with the same nasty and flamboyant style. Express this view, and almost every liberal and conservative head will nod: “Yup, yup, that’s how it is.” It is nonsense. No one will contradict you if you say it — but you’ll be a fool.</p>
<p>I cherish a comment that Hendrik Hertzberg, the <em>New Yorker</em> writer, once made to Collier &amp; Horowitz. He said, “You were apologists for Communism then and you are apologists for anti-Communism now.” They are not merely apologists for anti-Communism; they are anti-Communists, as all decent people are (though they will not necessarily be published in <em>The New Yorker</em>).</p>
<p>If you want to classify David politically, you can call him a conservative — with a healthy dose of Hayek in him. “My life experience had led me to conclude that not only was changing the world an impossible dream, but the refusal to recognize it as such was the source of innumerable individual tragedies and of epic miseries that human beings had inflicted on each other in my lifetime through the failed utopias of Nazism and Communism.” Seldom will you read a more conservative sentence. And you will read many more like it, in David’s collected writings. He is constantly inveighing against ideologies, party lines, rigidities.</p>
<p>David is known as a hothead and flamethrower. A rhetorical goon. He can be that. He can also be coolly cerebral. And he can be elegiac, lyrical — as in personal memoirs such as the one about his late daughter, <em>A Cracking of the Heart</em>. He has many moods, many styles. And make no mistake: He can do style.</p>
<p>Christopher Hitchens was supposed to be the most stylish writer and polemicist of his time. But consider an exchange between him and David on the radio. David said something rude — i.e., something true — about Castro. And Hitchens, with his practiced sneer, said, “How dare you? How <em>dare</em> you?” David replied, “Christopher, aren’t we getting a little old for how-dare-yous?” The more stylish person in that exchange was not Hitchens (who, like Paul Berman, would do some political sobering up).</p>
<p>The question of David’s reputation, or standing, is interesting: He has legions of fans, and legions of detractors, some of whom occupy high places. The Left won’t deal with him, of course. He has their number, he has kept book on them — and they resent it. Writes David, “An ideological <em>omertà</em> is the Left’s response to its vindicated critics, especially those who emerged from its own ranks.” I’m reminded of something a liberal intellectual and policymaker once said to Abigail Thernstrom (who migrated from left to right). He said, “I don’t like debating you, Abby, because you always know what I’m thinking, and you know what I’m going to say before I say it.”</p>
<p>And the conservatives? Have they welcomed David with open arms, gratitude, and delight? Not really. They have often been snippy and scornful about David. Grudging about him. How to explain it? I’m sure I can’t, satisfactorily, but I will have a go:</p>
<p>David, they say, can be harsh, obnoxious, and generally impossible. I have no doubt he can. He can also be a peach. Furthermore, David is an activist — not just an intellectual, but an activist. And some conservatives are uncomfortable with activism. They would rather observe, opine, and sigh. David wants to take up cudgels and win. He says to lazy or defeatist conservatives, “Wake up! Fight back! The Left is eating your lunch, but it need not be so!” David is fearless in an environment marked by some fearfulness. He is an upsetter of the apple cart, and the upsetting of the apple cart is not very conservative. When David goes into a university and makes a fuss about the curriculum, some conservatives are embarrassed. They say, “Stop making a fuss. It may cause them to dislike us even more. Plus, aren’t we born to be an oppressed minority?” Some conservatives are content with dhimmitude. And, frankly, there are conservatives who have the sneaking hope that they will be approved by the <em>New York Times</em> et al. “Look, I may be on the right, but I’m not an extremist and nuisance like Horowitz, you know. You can bring me home to dinner.”</p>
<p>Willmoore Kendall once made a wicked remark about Cleanth Brooks, his colleague at Yale: “Cleanth is always the second-most-conservative person in the room.”</p>
<p>In a way, David is a man without a home — an independent, a republic unto himself. Speaking at his alma mater in 2009, he said, “Fifty years ago, my radical views caused me to feel like an outsider at Columbia. Returning as a conservative, I find myself an outsider still — and again it is because of my political views.”</p>
<p>As I was reading <em>My Life and Times</em>, I kept writing in the margins, “True, true!” And as I read about David’s thoughts and experiences, I couldn’t help thinking of my own. Other readers will find the same, I’m sure. I kept thinking, “Yes, that’s what I saw, that’s what I heard, that’s what I felt.” Take the matter of human rights: The people around me constantly yelled about Pinochet’s Chile, Marcos’s Philippines, and, above all, apartheid South Africa. And yell they should have. But what about the people behind the Iron Curtain? And in China, North Korea, and Vietnam? And in Cuba? If you prick or torture them, do they not bleed? Aren’t human rights for them, too?</p>
<p>Obviously, no one can agree with David on every point in the hundreds of pages of Volume 1, or in the thousands of pages of the volumes to come. That would be absurd. In all likelihood, David doesn’t agree with David on every point. (Do you agree with everything you’ve said for the past 25 or 30 years?) But I always want to know what David has to say. Early in that Columbia speech, he praised a professor, saying, “He was there . . . to teach us <em>how</em> to think and not to tell us <em>what</em> to think — therefore to respect the divergent opinions of others. I am afraid this is a vanishing ethos in our culture and a dying pedagogical art in our university classrooms today.” Oh, yes. Like everyone else, David will sometimes tell you what to think. But he is more interested in suggesting how you should think.</p>
<p>Once he was asked, “Do you ever feel that you are wasting your breath? Do you think that truth will ever matter? No matter what you prove or disprove, in the end the truth will remain in the shadows of what people want to hear and want to believe.” David answered, “I agree more than I care to with this observation.” For my part, I can say that David has not wasted his breath. He learned important things in the first stages of his life, and has learned important things since. He has wanted to impart what he knows, and he has many beneficiaries. Everyone? Of course not. Enough beneficiaries, though — more than most ever have.</p>
<p>What has driven him, I think, is what drove Whittaker Chambers and lots of others who left Communism and dedicated themselves to anti-Communism: a desire to tell the truth, and to have other people know the truth. A desire to be free of lies, and to counter them. “Live not by lies!” Solzhenitsyn implored, during the long years of the Soviet Union. Lies want to govern everything, and do, if you let them. David was sick of lies: about the Soviet Union, about the Panthers, about Vietnam, about everything. And he burns to know and tell the truth, insofar as that is possible.</p>
<p>This quality — a respect for the truth, an aversion to lies — has always existed in him, even if it has been suppressed or superseded at times. Age 14, he was walking across the Triborough Bridge to attend a rally for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the atomic spies for the Soviet Union. A political mentor was explaining to him that lying was justified, for revolutionary purposes. David knew this was wrong — felt in his stomach that it was. “The renegade Horowitz,” even then!</p>
<p>“Great is truth,” they say, “and will prevail.” It will, yes — but even if it didn’t, it would still be great.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To sign up for </strong><em><b>The Glazov Gang</b></em><strong>: </strong><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Click here</b></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jay-nordlinger/a-witness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Inscrutable Campus and the New Left Background</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-bauerlein/the-inscrutable-campus-and-the-new-left-background/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-inscrutable-campus-and-the-new-left-background</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-bauerlein/the-inscrutable-campus-and-the-new-left-background/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 05:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Bauerlein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academic Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Book of the American Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elaine Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual diversity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz's new book sheds light on the progressive Gestapo in academia. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Huey-Newton.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-214221" alt="Huey Newton" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Huey-Newton-298x350.jpg" width="298" height="350" /></a><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://www.seethruedu.com/">SeeThruEdu.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>To order David Horowitz’s “<em>The Black Book of the American Left, Volume I: My Life And Times,” </em><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>One of the many frustrations that critics of ideological trends in <a id="FALINK_3_0_2" href="http://www.seethruedu.com/updates/inscrutable-campus-and-new-left-background#">higher education</a> face is that so many of our audience do not recognize extreme cases as significant to the overall intellectual condition of the campus.  They hear about Ward Churchill and think, &#8220;Boy, he&#8217;s a wild one,&#8221; and that&#8217;s all.  Churchill ran a large &#8220;studies&#8221; department for many years at a flagship public university, overseeing personnel and curriculum, and prospering in a complex academic machinery, but outsiders don&#8217;t <a id="FALINK_1_0_0" href="http://www.seethruedu.com/updates/inscrutable-campus-and-new-left-background#">register</a> the validation of his outlook and how it might have had a wide local influence.  Or they think the same thing about the Michigan State creative writing professor who ranted about Republicans who have &#8220;raped&#8221; our country, and the same thing about the American Studies Association boycott of Israel.  However heated and forthright are those extremists, they are quickly dismissed as wacky academics, a type that the campus environment has had and will always have, and the best thing to do is to tolerate them when we can and punish them quietly when we cannot, or if the story hits the media, make our punishment so circumspect and deliberative that the administrators look clean and upright.</p>
<p>One reason for this un-serious judgment of Leftist extremists, I think, is because people don&#8217;t see any genesis for their existence.  They are anomalous, wrong-headed, short-sighted, and local, the judgment goes.  They don&#8217;t have a history, which is one reason why they can be dismissed.</p>
<p>This is a mistake.  These behaviors are, in fact, a remnant of New Left words and deeds, but I don&#8217;t know of any way to impress outsiders of that origin without having them read direct and convincing reminiscences of those years.  How do you draw a line between kids at Brown University disrupting a guest lecture in 2013 and students shutting down classes in 1969 if people know nothing about campus protests back then?  How can you demonstrate the similarities between the Group of 88&#8242;s tactics and the conduct of faculty members long ago who commiserated with and supported disruptive undergraduates when nobody remembers the latter?</p>
<p>A new two-volume collection of David Horowitz’ writings has been published by Encounter Books, and it has this particular <a id="FALINK_2_0_1" href="http://www.seethruedu.com/updates/inscrutable-campus-and-new-left-background#">application</a> to academia that conservative and libertarian critics need.  Entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-American-Left/dp/1594036942"><em>The Black Book of the American Left</em></a>, it is part-memoir, part-diagnosis, and part-politics, ranging from the anti-Vietnam War Movement to Pinochet to Ann Coulter, but only a few pages on the college campus.</p>
<p>Here is a softer example which Horowitz served to illuminate. Several years ago, my institution Emory University hosted Elaine Brown for a couple of days of lecture, discussion, conversation, and meals.  I attended one event and don’t remember what Brown said, but caught firmly the demeanor and cadence of the delivery.  It was hip, knowing, coy, and canny, not an argument or a thesis, but clipped observations and half-articulated notions about racial and gender identity (if I recall).  The audience, on the other hand, was dutiful and attentive and admiring, the q &amp; a producing none of the customary quibbling and speechifying.  To me, there was an unspoken understanding in the room, a silent awareness that produced a different atmosphere, as if something was going on beneath or above the ostensible activity.</p>
<p>I didn’t understand this odd deference, an exception to the disputatious mores that surface at the many other talks on campus—not until later when I read David Horowitz’ remarks about Brown in a reminiscence going back to Oakland in the 1970s.  At the time, Brown was a figure in the Black Panther leadership, a lieutenant of Huey Newton, and Horowitz was editor of the New Left magazine <em>Ramparts</em>.  In his essay, Horowitz described a menacing and erratic woman, with one personality for “the Party’s wealthy liberal supporters” and another for “the violent world of the street gang.”  He heard her utter death threats to people she wanted to control and he heard her conduct shrewd seductions of people she needed.  She charmed Horowitz for a time, using him to generate funds for a Black Panther school, but her “street passions” increasingly worried him until he came across evidence that Brown had conspired to murder a woman he had brought into the school to keep the books.  (Nothing ever came of the investigation.)</p>
<p>I don’t think that the people in the room at Emory that afternoon knew the details of Elaine Brown’s role in the Panthers.  By then she had developed programs to help underprivileged children and stood popularly as a dedicated enemy of racism, sexism, and poverty.  But one could sense more than simple admiration in the audience; it struck me as a subtle excitement over a former-Black Panther in the room (and a female one, at that).  It wasn’t quite “radical chic,” because none of the attendees earned any social standing from the support, but it certainly counted as a specimen of academic chic, a chance to make contact with genuine radicalism, even if it had ended years earlier.  Here was someone with first-hand experience of ideologically-motivated, morally dicey but ultimately sanctioned violent protest, and it heightened the excitement of the event.</p>
<p>Horowitz’ memoirs demonstrate where that <em>frisson</em> originated, and I think it applies to many cases of malfeasance on campus that have a political tenor.  Many of the outrageous acts of hard Leftists on campus have no effect except to degrade academic standards.  Nobody should, in fact, take seriously an English professor denouncing Republicans except the students in the room who expected something better.  But it did provide the actor a thrilling moment of participation in the old days of SDS, the Free Speech Movement, the Chicago Seven . . .  The extremes of the New Left, the descent into “days of rage,” the radical demands . . . they aren’t overtly common in academia, but they carry over as lingering resentment, feats of intimidation, coercive versions of political correctness.  To understand them, it isn’t enough to examine local conditions.  Observers need to go back to the Sixties.  This collection of Horowitz’ is an illuminating resource.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To sign up for </strong><em><b>The Glazov Gang</b></em><strong>: </strong><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Click here</b></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-bauerlein/the-inscrutable-campus-and-the-new-left-background/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Good Fight</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/vladimir-tismaneanu/a-good-fight/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-good-fight</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/vladimir-tismaneanu/a-good-fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 05:58:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Vladimir Tismaneanu]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Havel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kolakowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Black Book of the American Left]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The political journey of David Horowitz.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/tbb1.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-213701" alt="tbb" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/tbb1.jpg" width="300" height="454" /></a><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/">WeeklyStandard.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>To order <em>The Black Book of the American Left, Volume I &#8211; My Life and Times</em>, <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=SZLFMGIYTBFM">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>David Horowitz is a political thinker and cultural critic who enjoys challenging leftist shibboleths. His main contribution to contemporary political discourse is a passionate commitment to an outspoken, unabashed, myth-breaking version of conservatism. If communism was the triumph of mendaciousness, he argues in this poignant collection of writings, conservatism cannot accept the proliferation of self-serving legends and half-truths.</p>
<p>This makes his public interventions refreshingly unpredictable, iconoclastic, and engaging. He is a former insider, and his views have the veracity of the firsthand witness. Horowitz knows better than anybody else the hypocrisies of the left, the unacknowledged skeletons in its closet, and its fear to come to terms with past ignominies. He is an apostate who sees no reason to mince his words to please the religion of political and historical correctness. His masters are other critics of totalitarian delusions, from George Orwell to <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/vladimir-tismaneanu/why-kolakowski-matters/">Leszek Kolakowski</a>; in fact, Horowitz’s awakening from his leftist dreams was decisively catalyzed by the illuminating effect of Kolakowski’s devastating <a id="FALINK_2_0_1" href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/vladimir-tismaneanu/why-kolakowski-matters/">critique</a> of socialist ideas. Unlike his former comrades, however, Horowitz believes in the healing value of second thoughts.</p>
<p>Vilified by enemies as a right-wing crusader, Horowitz is, in fact, a lucid thinker for whom ideas matter and words have consequences. His break with the left in the late 1970s was a response to what he perceived to be its rampant sense of self-righteousness, combined with its readiness to endorse obsolete and pernicious utopian ideals. Born to a Communist family in Queens, Horowitz flirted with the Leninist creed as a teenager but <a id="FALINK_3_0_2" href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/good-fight_771511.html#">found</a> out early that the Communist sect was insufferably obtuse and irretrievably sclerotic. He attended Columbia, where he discovered Western Marxism and other non-Bolshevik revolutionary doctrines. From the very beginning, he had an appetite for heresy.</p>
<p>He joined the emerging New Left and went to England, where he became a disciple and close associate of the socialist historian Isaac Deutscher, author of once-celebrated biographies of Stalin and Trotsky. Thanks to Deutscher, Horowitz met other British leftists, including the sociologist Ralph Miliband (father of the current leader of the <a id="FALINK_1_0_0" href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/good-fight_771511.html#">Labour</a> party). Consumed by revolutionary pathos, he wrote books, pamphlets, and manifestoes, denounced Western imperialism, and condemned the Vietnam war.</p>
<p>Once back in the United States, he became the editor, with Peter Collier, of <em>Ramparts</em>, the New Left’s most influential publication. In later books, Horowitz engages in soul-searching analyses of his attraction to the extreme radicalism of the Black Panthers and other far-left groups. Under tragic circumstances—a friend of his was murdered by the Panthers—he discovered that these celebrated antiestablishment fighters were fundamentally sociopaths. What followed was an itinerary of self-scrutiny, self-understanding, and moral epiphany. He reinvented himself as an anti-Marxist, antitotalitarian, anti-utopian thinker.</p>
<p>Obviously, David Horowitz is not the first to have deplored the spellbinding effects of what Raymond Aron called the opium of the intellectuals. Before him, social and cultural critics (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, to name only the most famous ones) took the same path; Bertolt Brecht’s Marxist mentor, Karl Korsch, broke with his revolutionary past in the 1950s. Even Max Horkheimer, one of the Frankfurt School’s luminaries, ended as a conservative thinker. As Ignazio Silone, himself a former Leninist, put it: The ultimate struggle would be between Communists and ex-Communists.</p>
<p>In Horowitz’s case, however, it is a struggle waged by an ex-leftist ideologue against political mythologies that have made whole generations run amok. Like Kolakowski and Václav Havel, Horowitz identifies ideological blindness as the source of radical zealotry. He knows that ideologies are coercive structures with immense enthralling effects—indeed, what Kenneth Minogue called “alien powers.” Putting together his fervid writings is, for him, a duty of conscience. He does not claim to be nonpartisan and proudly recognizes his attachment to a conservative vision of politics. But he is a pluralist: He refuses the idea of infallible ideological revelation, admits that human beings can err, and invites his readers to exercise their critical faculties. He does not pontificate.</p>
<p>Judith Shklar once wrote about a liberalism of fear, a philosophy rooted in the awareness that the onslaught against liberal values in totalitarian experiments inevitably results in catastrophe. Horowitz’s conservatism is inspired by the conviction that utopian hubris is always conducive to moral, social, and political disaster. It is not an optimistic  conservatism, but a tragic one. Horowitz confesses that he is an agnostic, yet he realizes that liberty, as a nonnegotiable human value, has a transcendent legitimation in religion. In the absence of a moral ground, individuals are suspended in a moral no-man’s land: Rebels become revolutionaries and exert their logical fallacies to eliminate deviation from a sacralized ideology.</p>
<p>For Horowitz, the main battle is now related to cultural hegemony. He understands that political rivalries are directly linked to clashes of values. Refusing to be pigeonholed into a formula, he combines themes belonging to classical liberalism, Burkean conservatism, and neoconservatism. His social criticism is a response to what he perceives to be the collapse of the center in American politics and the takeover of the liberal mainstream by proponents of refurbished leftist fallacies. He regards anticapitalism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism as ideological mantras meant to camouflage a deep contempt for human rights.</p>
<p><em>The Black Book of the American Left</em> is an illuminating contribution to our understanding of what Hannah Arendt once called the ideological storms of the 20th century. It shows how American radicals partook of the same romantic passions and redemptive fantasies as their European peers. The philosophical languages were different, of course, but the electrifying desire to negate the existing order, no matter the human costs, was the same.</p>
<p><em>Vladimir Tismaneanu, professor of politics at the University of Maryland, is the author, most recently, of </em>The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century<em>. </em></p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To sign up for </strong><em><b>The Glazov Gang</b></em><strong>: </strong><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Click here</b></a><strong>.</strong></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/vladimir-tismaneanu/a-good-fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1403/1488 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 10:28:51 by W3 Total Cache -->