<?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; Freedom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/freedom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>How Language Shapes Freedom and Tyranny — on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/how-language-shapes-freedom-and-tyranny-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-language-shapes-freedom-and-tyranny-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/how-language-shapes-freedom-and-tyranny-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:35:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kai Chen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linguistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonie Darwish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slavery]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Freedom fighters Kai Chen and Nonie Darwish unveil the links between linguistics and liberty. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/free.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247292" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/free-450x337.jpg" alt="free" width="268" height="201" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.]</a></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">In this special two-part-series, <em>The Glazov Gang </em>brings together two freedom fighters from totalitarian environments to unveil the links between linguistics and liberty.</p>
<p>In the first episode, <strong>Kai Chen</strong>, China’s Basketball Superstar and the author of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/One-Billion-Journey-Toward-Freedom/dp/1425985025">One In A Billion: Journey Toward Freedom,</a> </i>joins the Gang to discuss <strong>How Language Shapes Freedom and Tyranny</strong><em>, </em>analyzing the links between linguistics and liberty.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">In the second episode, <strong>Nonie Darwish, </strong>a modern day freedom fighter and the author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Devil-Dont-Know-Revolutions/dp/1118133390"><em>The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East,</em></a> joins the Gang to discuss: <strong>How Arabic Stifles Individualism and Freedom<em>, </em></strong>shedding light on how the Arabic language impedes psychological growth and sabotages the path to democracy:</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>1. Kai Chen:</strong> <strong>How Language Shapes Freedom and Tyranny.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Afjz_OFNsiI" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">2. <strong>Nonie Darwish:</strong> <strong>How Arabic Stifles Individualism and Freedom<em>.</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IYogCKcU4iM" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/how-language-shapes-freedom-and-tyranny-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Whittle: Selling Conservatism</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/bill-whittle-selling-conservatism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bill-whittle-selling-conservatism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/bill-whittle-selling-conservatism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:27:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hope and change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245729</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Firewall star explains how to pitch a pro-freedom message at Restoration Weekend. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Below are the video and transcript to Bill Whittle&#8217;s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 20th Anniversary Restoration Weekend. The event took place Nov. 13th-16th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida.</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/112280256" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p>Before I start things I&#8217;d like to just say one thing. This is my first time here. It&#8217;s my third time here but it&#8217;s my first time here actually working for the Freedom Center and working with David.  And being the person who&#8217;s always written his own videos and very proud of his own videos, I&#8217;ve had a chance to actually work with David on scripts and let me just explain to you briefly how that goes.  I&#8217;ll have a script idea for something I think is really profound, important and deep and I&#8217;ll send it to David and David will go, &#8220;Ah, mostly no, you really kind of missed the boat.  You should concentrate a little more over this and take some of this out and add this beat over here.&#8221;  And I say, &#8220;Well, yes sir, that&#8217;ll be great&#8221; and then I hang up the phone and go, &#8220;Oh, you&#8217;re going to get your beat over here.  You want a beat over here?  I&#8217;ll put a beat over here.  I&#8217;ll take this out of my video &#8230; tell me who&#8217;s going to write my own videos &#8230;&#8221;  And I say, &#8220;Yeah, no, no, no.  We&#8217;ll take this out, no problem.  We&#8217;ll take it out.  We&#8217;ll add this.  Sure.  Here ya go.  Take a look at it.  It&#8217;s fine.  You&#8217;re paying me here …&#8221;  It&#8217;s so much better, it&#8217;s just so much better.  It&#8217;s so much better.  Curse you Comrade Horowitz.  Curse you and your magnificent vision for how to make a message clear and on point.</p>
<p>So what are we going to talk about today? Well, two years ago I was on this very stage just a few days after we took a shellacking by the Democrats.  I was on this stage two years ago after we&#8217;d lost a big election and I was terrific.  And if there&#8217;s any correlation between those two things, this morning I am just gonna suck because we whipped those racist, anti-Semitic communists out of their boots.  We whipped them out of their boots.  Couldn&#8217;t have happen to a nicer bunch of venal criminals.  So I&#8217;m sure the question everybody&#8217;s asking is what now?  I mean, what now?</p>
<p>When Obama was elected it was the lightworker descending from heaven into the Roman columns and two years later the American people said enough of this guy.  We recaptured the House of Representatives.  That allowed him, allowed us to stop him from doing an awful lot of damage.  We had this incredible reverse in 2012 and now we have the Senate.  What does the Senate give us?  Well, this is not what I want to talk about today, but I think what we have with the House and the Senate is we have the ability to deliver legislation to the president&#8217;s desk and we should be delivering a lot of legislation to his desk and make that son of a gun veto it.  Make him own it.  Make him take personal responsibility for the first time in his life and say &#8220;Nope, nope.&#8221;  The 2015 Small Business Anti-Regulation Act.  Nope.  The 2016 IRS Restructuring Bill.  Nope.  Make him own it.  The Secure the Boarders for American Safety Act.  Nope.  Make him own his policies and failure by sending the kind of legislation the American people want to see and have him veto it.  And you put some markers down for 2016.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s not really what I want to talk about today.  What I&#8217;d like to talk about today briefly is this.  What are we actually selling to the American people?  What&#8217;s our message?  For six years now we&#8217;ve been saying these guys are awful and their policies are awful and they&#8217;re damaging the country and here&#8217;s the evidence.  And they are.  And we keep doing this and that&#8217;s what the videos do, but we can&#8217;t just be a party or a movement that has a negative message.  Don&#8217;t do that &#8217;cause the American people have a perfect right to ask, &#8220;Well, if we don&#8217;t do that then what do we do?&#8221;  What do you think is a better idea?  That&#8217;s what I want to talk about today.  I&#8217;d like to talk about what I think the conservative message; I won&#8217;t say the Republican message, but I will say the conservative message.  What is the conservative message moving forward from this point especially starting in 2016?  And I think where we have to start from is we have to start from the progressive message &#8217;cause they had a message in 2008.  And that message was &#8220;Hope and Change.&#8221;  And that&#8217;s where we need to start.  Because hope and change appealed to a lot of people; appealed to a lot of stupid people, but it appealed to a lot of people.  Because hope and change, when you think about it, first of all, are unbelievably vague terms.  They&#8217;re extremely vague.  Hope.  Hope, hope, hope.  Hope for what?  Change.  Change to what?  Change to what?  Driving along the freeway and then going off a cliff is a change.  Well change to what?  Hope from what?  But if you think about their message, this is the point I&#8217;m trying to make today.</p>
<p>Hope and change, when you get right down to it, are extremely passive qualities.  They&#8217;re the qualities of herd animals.  They hope for change.  They hope for change.  There&#8217;s nothing, no ownership in it.  There&#8217;s no motion.  There&#8217;s no ability to control your destiny.  You hope for change.  You sit back and wait for something to happen.  You sit and wait for something to happen.  And that&#8217;s entirely their philosophy and that&#8217;s what they want.  They want a nation of people who sit and wait for them and the rest of the elitists to make something happen for them.  And the American people are getting a little tired of hoping for change.  They&#8217;re done with it.  We have to give them a better message.  So what&#8217;s better than hope and change?</p>
<p>Well, many of you may have heard of an author named Viktor Frankl.  He was a philosopher who survived the concentration camps and he did a lot of thinking about this in the camp and then in a series of years of clinical research afterwards.  And Frankl wrote a book called Man&#8217;s Search for Meaning.  And Frankl realized that it&#8217;s not money that people want.  Freud thought that mankind&#8217;s main motivation was the pursuit of pleasure.  But Frankl found out that wasn&#8217;t the case at all in the camps.  He found that the people that survived in the camps survived because they had some sense of meaning.  Something mattered to them.  It was never the same for any two people.  Some cases it might be a missing wife, maybe it&#8217;s a book that wasn&#8217;t finished, maybe it&#8217;s a desire to see Venice.  But the people that held on to some sense of meaning survived those awful conditions and Frankl wrote that in the concentration camps you could tell when a man was about to die because when he gave up his quest for meaning, he was gone in three days.  They just knew he was on his way out.  It&#8217;s meaning.  It&#8217;s not power.  It&#8217;s not money.  It&#8217;s meaning.</p>
<p>So, if we take that as granted &#8212; and I know that&#8217;s certainly true in my life and I&#8217;m sure it&#8217;s true in your life.  Successful people, you know, the left thinks that successful people &#8212; rich people, business people &#8212; go into business to make money.  That&#8217;s not why anybody starts a business.  People start a business because they have something they want to achieve.  They have a vision of something.  They&#8217;ve got a dream.  They can make a lot of money doing that but never say, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to go out and make a lot of money.&#8221;  No.  I want to start a dry-cleaning business.  I think we can do a better job with mortgages.  Whatever the case may be.  So I think Frankl&#8217;s right.  I think meaning is what people want.  And if we&#8217;re going to be a party that has a future and as a party that has a message, we need to incorporate this.  So if I was going to write the message for the conservatives going into the future, I would say no, forget hope and change.  Those are passive, weak, probably-never-gonna-happen, lottery-ticket philosophies for herd animals.</p>
<p>If I was leading the GOP I would say our message on every single program that we put out is &#8220;What is your individual plan for meaning in your life?&#8221; What&#8217;s your plan for meaning in your life?  If you raise that question, you start people thinking along the kind of lines that they should be thinking about in this country.  What&#8217;s your plan for meaning in your life?  That&#8217;s a specific question and it requires a specific kind of answer.  A very specific kind of answer.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s your plan for meaning?  Well, what&#8217;s required in the plan?  If you&#8217;re going to plan for something, what&#8217;s required in a plan?  You know, the difference between hope and plan is that a plan is hope on a timetable.  And I don&#8217;t mean to be particularly vulgar about this but the difference between hoping and planning is the difference between sitting in your parents&#8217; basement at 39 years old playing video games and watching online porn versus working your butt off with two jobs and taking out the high school homecoming queen on prom night.  That&#8217;s the difference between hoping and planning.  And I know which one I&#8217;d rather do &#8217;cause I&#8217;ve done them both.</p>
<p>So, you want to get people to be thinking along the lines of planning.  What does planning entail?  What does it take to make a plan for your individual meaning?  What do you have to do?  Well, if you&#8217;re going to plan something, you need probably five qualities.  Right?  You need ambition.  You need vision.  You need confidence, persistence and hard work.  You need those things.  And you can tell people that if you&#8217;re willing to do those things, you don&#8217;t have to hope anymore because it&#8217;s not something that may happen someday.  If you have a plan and you&#8217;re willing to execute the plan, you will get to whatever you define is the meaning in your life.  You will get there.  And then all of a sudden the American people realize what they used to realize a long time ago before these progressives came in here with their control over everything.  That their destinies are in their hands, not the government&#8217;s hands.  That their destinies are not dependent on somebody else&#8217;s welfare, nobody else&#8217;s opinion of you, not your personal influence.  It&#8217;s in your hands.  You own your own future.  It&#8217;s your future to do with what you want to.</p>
<p>Why do you think Thomas Jefferson shocked the world by saying, &#8220;Life, liberty and&#8221; &#8212; instead of property because that&#8217;s what everybody referred to, &#8220;life, liberty and property&#8221; &#8212; &#8220;the pursuit of happiness.&#8221;  What an astonishing idea that was.  What an astonishing insight into the human condition to understand that the three things that make this country work are life, the ability to be alive and to have your own soul and your own desires, liberty, the freedom to do whatever you damn well want to so long as you don&#8217;t interfere with somebody else&#8217;s liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That&#8217;s built into a government?  That&#8217;s astonishing.  And that is the astonishing idea that we need to revive with the American people.  That you have the ability to pursue your own individual happiness and no one can stop you.  No one can stop you.  If you know what you want, you will get there if you follow these steps.  So what are the steps?</p>
<p>Well, the first step is ambition.  And the beautiful thing about ambition is ambition can be as big or as small as the individual person.  Some people may have an ambition to be a brain surgeon and that&#8217;s going to require a lot of hard work over a long period of time.  Some person&#8217;s ambition may be to go to every single home game of the Green Bay Packers.  And that person&#8217;s ambition and that person&#8217;s meaning is no more and no less meaningful than a brain surgeon because if going to every single home game of the Green Bay Packers makes that person happy and is what they care about, then they have a right to find a way to make that happen in their lives.  It&#8217;s no better and no worse.  It is an individual search for meaning.  So you have to have first of all the ambition to understand that there&#8217;s things out there that you want.</p>
<p>I think the second thing you need in order to execute a plan is you need a vision.  You need to see it.  You need to see it.  This where it comes closest to these progressives&#8217; ideas of hope.  I have a dream.  What&#8217;s your dream?  I have a dream that someday maybe I&#8217;ll own a really big boat.  Okay.  How you gonna get there?  I buy a lottery ticket once a week; I spend a dollar …  We know that&#8217;s not going to get you the boat and on some level you know it, too.  On some level that dollar is a narcotic that you&#8217;re injecting into your arm that allows you to think about having a boat, but you know you&#8217;re not going to get that boat with that lottery ticket and everybody in the American public knows it.  And that&#8217;s exactly what these people are selling the American people.  No.  That&#8217;s what these progressives are selling.  A shot in the arm with a narcotic saying don&#8217;t worry we&#8217;ll give you barely enough food, barely enough housing.  We&#8217;ll give you crappy phones, all this other stuff.  It&#8217;s a narcotic.  That hope is a narcotic in that sense.  If you go to the American people and say you want a boat?  You say, good, I can relate to that.  I&#8217;d like to have a boat, too.  How do you get to your boat?  What&#8217;s your plan?  Then you start to realize no one is in your way, but you&#8217;ve got to see it.  Everybody out here who&#8217;s run a business has had in their heads a vision of what that business could look like.  They have a vision of what their career would look like.  They have a vision of what their house lots would look like.  They may know what kind of car they want to drive.  Sometimes you&#8217;re touching these things.  Sometimes your touching them with your own hands.  That&#8217;s all it takes.  You want to drive a nice Mercedes convertible?  Rent one.  Feel it.  Touch it.  Now you know what you want.  It&#8217;s there.  It&#8217;s real.  See, you need the vision of it.</p>
<p>I think probably the most important part of this five-step plan is confidence.  You gotta believe it.  You gotta believe you can do it.  I think Henry Ford&#8217;s statement is as true a thing as I&#8217;ve ever heard: Whether you believe you&#8217;re going to succeed or believe you&#8217;re going to fail, you&#8217;re right.  Right?  It&#8217;s that simple.  Do you think you can do it?  Do you have the confidence to think that you can do it?  And of all the things that these progressives have done to this country, the thing that distressed me the most is how they have so insidiously destroyed each individual person&#8217;s sense of confidence in his own ability to lead his own life.  That is appalling.  It&#8217;s appalling.  Confidence is everything.  Confidence is everything and I&#8217;m a very confident person by and large.  But confidence isn&#8217;t a little fortress that we live in you know. There are days that I wake up and I&#8217;m just completely out of juice.  I just don&#8217;t have any confidence left; it&#8217;s gone.  I&#8217;m done. I don&#8217;t have any confidence left.  I don&#8217;t believe any of this stuff&#8217;s going to work.  I sit there.  I do awful things. I say awful things. I say things I regret. I hurt the people I like.  I&#8217;m miserable.  I&#8217;m embittered.  I&#8217;m jealous.  I&#8217;m petty.  I&#8217;m a Democrat for a couple of days.  I&#8217;m just a progressive for a couple of days wishing and hoping that things were different and angry that things didn&#8217;t turn out the way I wanted and thinking, ah, well, this person&#8217;s got the stuff that I want, and I&#8217;m a progressive for a day or two and then I slowly put the confidence back together and it takes a day or two or a week or whatever and then I&#8217;ll just kind of pick myself up and go back and try again.</p>
<p>Which leads us to our fourth point in this giant idea of a plan: persistence.  Persistence.  Are you going to do this until you fail, Bill?  No.  No, I&#8217;m not going to do this until I fail.  I have &#8212; the first time I stood on this podium I&#8217;d been failing for 40 years before I got up here.  I had been a failure for easily 35 years before anybody ever heard of me.  And I don&#8217;t mean like a one-time failure.  I mean, I&#8217;ve been a security guard, I&#8217;ve been a waiter, I&#8217;ve been a limousine driver.  I&#8217;ve done everything and I&#8217;ve probably ruined six businesses trying to get up here.  But the seventh one&#8217;s working out pretty well.  And so I&#8217;m going to continue to fail until I succeed.  And I&#8217;m not afraid of failure anymore.  Failure is my friend.  Failure teaches me lessons.  I was; the next video we&#8217;re doing for Firewall is about the crash in the Mojave.  Spaceship Two.  I got to be good friends with Burt Rutan.  We made; it looked like that spacecraft crash happened because the copilot reached out too early and pulled the knob to release the feather mechanism in the back of the spacecraft.  Why did he do that?  Well, as pilots we&#8217;re trained to touch the things that we&#8217;re supposed to see in a preflight and I think he just made a simple honest mistake that probably could be fixed by one line on a checklist.  I think it&#8217;s going to be just that simple.  One line on a checklist would have saved that mission.  Does that mean that we shouldn&#8217;t have flown the mission?  No.  We didn&#8217;t know that before.  Now we know.  We&#8217;re going to go; we&#8217;re going to make new mistakes now and we&#8217;re going to kill more people so we can find out what else we don&#8217;t know.  And we&#8217;ll keep going up there until we find out what we don&#8217;t know, and then when we find out what we don&#8217;t know, we&#8217;ll know what we know and then we&#8217;ll move on.  And then that vehicle will be safe.  And then we&#8217;ll go make some new failures and kill some more new people.  Courageous people who risk their lives to find out what we don&#8217;t know.  That&#8217;s persistence.  That&#8217;s what makes America.  It&#8217;s good to fail.  It should be easy to fail here.  I&#8217;ve failed here more times than I can count.  Failure&#8217;s your friend as long as it doesn&#8217;t get you down.  Persistence.  Persistence.  You just keep trying.  Keep trying until you get there.  And nothing in a plan should ever be single-pointed failure.  If you have a plan that depends on one individual sending money in to you or one thing happening; it&#8217;s not a plan.  That&#8217;s still hope.  It&#8217;s got to have pathways to get there.</p>
<p>And I think the final thing I&#8217;ll say after persistence of course &#8212; and this is the deal killer for the left.  Ultimately when it&#8217;s all said and done my friends, what it really comes down to for your individual plan for meaning is hard work.  And the left wants nothing to do with that.  It&#8217;s so much easier to tax a business than it is to run a business.  It&#8217;s so much easier to legislate other people&#8217;s money into your wallet than it is to go out and actually make your own.  It&#8217;s so much easier to just convince people to give you all the power than it is to go out and earn your own power. If anybody thinks that Barack Obama in the private sector could afford the smallest private jet, a Citation maybe, through the kind of brain and intellect that he has &#8230;  He condemns people to travel in private jets; he&#8217;s got the biggest private jet in the world.  He&#8217;s got a four-engine 747 and he&#8217;s got another one waiting right behind him.  Does anybody think that Barack Obama could earn that jet if he didn&#8217;t go around telling other people that they&#8217;re hopeless sheep hoping for change?  Of course not.  Joe Biden. It&#8217;s not that Joe Biden couldn&#8217;t run WalMart.  Joe Biden couldn&#8217;t run <em>a</em> Wal-Mart.  He couldn&#8217;t manage a Wal-Mart.  He travels in limousines by making people dependent on hope and change.  So it&#8217;s hard work.  It&#8217;s a lot of hard work.</p>
<p>And to close I want to tell you what that hard work means to me.  There&#8217;s two people especially in this crowd today who&#8217;ve been a big part of me doing this extra work for these Firewalls that have been so much fun and so rewarding for me.  One of them is Ben Shapiro.  You here Ben?  Here he is.  My friend Jeremy Boreing was telling me, I was trying to decide can I do this extra work &#8212; &#8217;cause I already was working pretty hard and this is going to be a lot of extra work, these Firewalls &#8212; can I do it?  Can I do it?  And Jeremy, said well Ben works like a rented mule and anytime more work comes along for Ben, he takes it.  And I thought this 12-year-old guy is making all this money?  He&#8217;s making this money because he works like an animal.  Like an animal.  He works all the time.  He writes so much and I remember thinking, well, jeez, if this cute little thing can do it &#8230; and then I figure I might be able to do a little more work myself, and if I have to get up earlier and stay up later then that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m going to do.  And the other person who had a big effect on me in the same way is Andrew Klavan.  You in here Andrew?  I know I saw him earlier.  He left when he saw me speaking.  He normally just leaves the room when I&#8217;m present because it&#8217;s too much for him to bear.  But Andrew Klavan said the same thing.  He said, &#8220;Take it, do it.  You can sleep when you&#8217;re dead, Bill.&#8221;  And Andrew was telling me he had some advice when he was going to start on his own and his psychologist or somebody  &#8211; because he&#8217;s in a massive amount of therapy needless to say if you&#8217;re Andrew Klavan.  And he basically said his therapist said to him, Klavan said I don&#8217;t work on weekends.  This guy said to him well then you&#8217;re going to fail.  Any questions?  No, I don&#8217;t want to work on the weekends.  Then you&#8217;re going to fail.  So I work on weekends and I stay up late and I get up early.  And I work really hard and I earn the things that I earn because I have a vision in my plan for meaning.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t just have a dream.  When I was a kid I had a dream.  I wanted to walk on the moon.  I wanted to walk on the moon because that&#8217;s what people my age did.  We commanded space shuttle missions and then we commanded Mars missions and we planted the flag and we went out there a bunch of  steely-eye mission men and we broke new horizons because that&#8217;s what Americans do.  And for the middle part of my life I said well that&#8217;s not going to happen.  NASA&#8217;s a failure.  The space program&#8217;s a failure.  All they do is go around in circles.  The moon is further away now than it was in 1969.  The moon&#8217;s further away now than it was in 1959 when I was born.  Suddenly I realized it doesn&#8217;t matter, I want to walk on the moon.  I want to walk on the moon, and I have plan to walk on the moon, and I&#8217;m going to do it.  I&#8217;m going to do it.  I&#8217;m going to take a space program to the American people.  I&#8217;m going to sell them on it &#8212; $9.95 a month on their credit card.  It&#8217;s going to generate a couple of billion dollars a year, more than we can spend.  I&#8217;m going to sell it to them because I know how to do that and one of the prices of me coordinating this thing &#8212; I thought you&#8217;re all going to use a space engineer, no.  It needs a guy with vision, who can convince people that this is a good idea.  So I&#8217;m going to start a private space program two or three years from now. I&#8217;ve got it all laid out step by step.  No step is a cavern that&#8217;s a unjumpable,  It&#8217;s a routine, regular business plan and when I&#8217;m done 12 years from now, I&#8217;m walking on the moon. Or I&#8217;m going to die trying because that&#8217;s what I want to do.  I want to walk on the moon.  And I&#8217;m gonna.  I&#8217;m gonna.  Because I have a plan.  I have a plan.  And I&#8217;m going to do it &#8217;cause I&#8217;m going to do it.</p>
<p>And if you take that idea to the American people and say to them listen, it doesn&#8217;t have to be walking on the moon, it doesn&#8217;t have to be brain surgeon.  It really, truly can be &#8212; if what you want in life is a little boat to cruise the intercoastal waterway on, we can help you.  And by helping you what we really mean is we can get out of your way and show you how you can get that boat without depending on me or the lottery or any other thing that is some kind of cosmic ray that has to happen.  You want a boat?  Here&#8217;s how you get a boat.  What&#8217;s your plan for meaning in your life?  It changes people&#8217;s thinking and it gets them out of the herd mentality and takes us away from being a nation of sheep back to what we are, which is a pack of sheepdogs who protect the innocent, and when we run into villains and wolves and other creatures that go bump in the night, we tear their throats out.  We tear their throats out.</p>
<p>Thank you very much for having me.  It&#8217;s great to be here.</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/frontpagemag-com/bill-whittle-selling-conservatism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama vs. Us</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/obama-vs-us/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-vs-us</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/obama-vs-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2014 05:35:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have we reached the "post-Constitution" stage of our history? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-10-12-obama.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-245394" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-10-12-obama-438x350.jpg" alt="2014-10-12-obama" width="332" height="265" /></a>Suppose you saw a person driving his car on the wrong side of a highway, against the traffic. Would you call him a stupid and/or incompetent driver? You say, &#8220;Williams, what kind of question is that? Of course he&#8217;s one or the other!&#8221; I&#8217;d say, &#8220;Hold your horses. What are his intentions?&#8221; If the driver&#8217;s intentions are to cause highway calamity, one can hardly call his actions stupid or incompetent. Given his intentions, he is wisely acting in a manner to achieve his objectives.</p>
<p>This observation lies at the heart of my colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell&#8217;s column last week, in which he says, &#8220;Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past.&#8221; After suffering an elective trouncing at the polls, President Barack Obama issued Congress an ultimatum, saying that if it doesn&#8217;t enact the kind of immigration law that he would like, he will unilaterally issue an executive order to change the nation&#8217;s immigration laws. This threat, along with other abuses of his office, is not a sign of presidential stupidity or incompetence.</p>
<p>Obama is doing precisely what he promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, to cheering and mesmerized crowds: &#8220;We are going to fundamentally change America&#8221; and &#8220;We will change America. We will change the world.&#8221; Obama is living up to those pledges by subverting our Constitution and adopting the political style of a banana republic dictator. He showed his willingness to ignore the Constitution when he eliminated the work requirement in welfare reform laws enacted during the Clinton administration. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was enacted by Congress and hence is the law of the land. Obama has used executive orders to change the law on several occasions. Ask yourself whether our Constitution permits the president to unilaterally change a law enacted by Congress. For a president to do so is for him to behave like a banana republic dictator.</p>
<p>As Sowell says, &#8220;people who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama&#8217;s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.&#8221;</p>
<p>The recent elections, which gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, clearly indicate a repudiation of much of Obama&#8217;s agenda. But the question is whether the Republican majority has the courage to act on that repudiation and stop the president from running roughshod over the Constitution. Because Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, there is not much a president can do without a budget appropriation. The question is whether Congress has the guts to exercise its power.</p>
<p>We can rightfully condemn the president for picking and choosing which laws of the land he will obey and which he won&#8217;t, in violation of the Constitution&#8217;s Article 2, but is his administration&#8217;s executive branch that much of an exception to the other branches of the federal government — the legislative and judicial branches?</p>
<p>The legislative branch is bound by Article 1 of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 delineates the scope of congressional power to tax and spend. Nowhere within Article 1, Section 8 is Congress granted the authority to tax for at least two-thirds of the federal budget.</p>
<p>The courts are bound by the Constitution&#8217;s Article 3. Part of the courts&#8217; responsibility is to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government uphold the Constitution. In that respect, the courts have been grossly derelict, particularly during and after the New Deal era.</p>
<p>Seeing as all branches of federal government ignore most of the provisions of the Constitution, I think we can safely say that we&#8217;ve reached the post-Constitution stage of our history. Washington politicians are not to blame. It&#8217;s the American people who&#8217;ve lost their love and respect for our Constitution. Washington&#8217;s politicians are simply the agents for that contempt.</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/walter-williams/obama-vs-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>89</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Geert Wilders on &#8220;Fighting the Islamization of Free Societies&#8221; &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/geert-wilders-on-fighting-the-islamization-of-free-societies-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=geert-wilders-on-fighting-the-islamization-of-free-societies-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/geert-wilders-on-fighting-the-islamization-of-free-societies-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 04:40:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geert Wilders']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244058</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A titan and courageous truth-teller warns what has to be done to save the West. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Picture-6.gif"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244011" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Picture-6.gif" alt="Picture-6" width="286" height="189" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.]</a></strong></p>
<p>This week&#8217;s special episode of <em>The Glazov Gang</em> was joined by <strong>Geert Wilders</strong>, the founder and leader of the &#8220;Party for Freedom&#8221; &#8212; which is currently the fourth-largest party in the Dutch parliament. Mr. Wilders is best known for his brave stance against, and truth-telling about, Islam. He is the author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Marked-Death-Islams-Against-West/dp/1596987960"><em>Marked for Death: Islam&#8217;s War Against the West and Me</em></a>.</p>
<p>He came on the program to discuss: <strong>&#8220;Fighting the Islamization of Free Societies.&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss it!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/69-nah7rIOc" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Jamie Glazov</strong> discussing the Left&#8217;s Jihad-Denial and how it facilitates terror attacks against us: </em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QsDu8Os3PlA" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong><span id="more-244058"></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/geert-wilders-on-fighting-the-islamization-of-free-societies-on-the-glazov-gang-1-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Cameroonian Dissident’s Love Affair with America &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/a-cameroonian-dissidents-love-affair-with-america-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-cameroonian-dissidents-love-affair-with-america-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/a-cameroonian-dissidents-love-affair-with-america-on-the-glazov-gang/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2014 04:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ako Eyong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cameroon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Vision of the Blind King]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Author Ako Eyong shares his appreciation of living in the United States and how he treasures its gift of freedom. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nbv.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242302" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nbv.jpg" alt="nbv" width="297" height="175" /></a>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to <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>
<p>This week&#8217;s <em>Glazov Gang</em> was joined by <strong>Ako Eyong</strong>, a journalist from Cameroon, West Africa, where he became a political dissident and was eventually exiled for critiquing the government. He is the author of the new novel, <a class="profileLink" href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Vision-of-the-Blind-King/388021917887014" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=388021917887014">The Vision of the Blind King</a>.</p>
<p>Ako came on the show to discuss &#8220;A Cameroonian Dissident’s Love Affair With America,&#8221; discussing his appreciation of living in the U.S., his new novel, the vital importance for a nation not to abandon God, the conflict between love and fear, and much, much more:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/p1PidB3U2jA" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Don&#8217;t miss this week&#8217;s second episode with Conservative Entrepreneur <strong>Monty Morton</strong>, who came on the show to emphasize <strong>Two Lethal Threats to America:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DuMR7-ddCMQ" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To watch previous <em>Glazov Gang</em> episodes, </strong><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><strong>Click Here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> Jamie Glazov’s </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><strong>Fan Page</strong></a><strong> on Facebook.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong> </strong></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/a-cameroonian-dissidents-love-affair-with-america-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;To Hell With the Constitution!&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/to-hell-with-the-constitution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=to-hell-with-the-constitution</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/to-hell-with-the-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 04:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The long road of soft tyranny that led to Obama. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/600x393.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239944" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/600x393-450x347.jpg" alt="600x393" width="289" height="223" /></a>In 1902 Theodore Roosevelt intervened in a strike by Pennsylvania coal miners, exceeding his Constitutional authority as president. When this was pointed out to him by Republican House whip James E. Watson, Roosevelt allegedly yelled, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”</p>
<p>This outburst reflected the novel Progressive view of the Chief Executive. Instead of the Constitution’s limited powers focused on specific needs, such as national defense, beyond the capacity of the individual states or local governments to address, the President needed more expansive authority in order to serve the “people.” Over 100 years later, Barack Obama has governed on the same assumption, one that undermines the Constitution’s structure of balanced powers and limited government, and puts at risk our political freedom and autonomy.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;"><span style="color: #000000;">In January of this year Obama famously asserted, much less honestly than did T.R., his willingness to shed Constitutional limits: </span>“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got phone.” And he’s been true to his belief during his nearly six years in office. He has changed his own signature legislation, Obamacare, 42 times. He has also used his “pen and phone” to change immigration laws, gun laws, labor laws, environmental policy, and many other statutes that should be the purview of the legislative branch, to which the Constitution gives the law-making power.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;">Other presidents, of course, have used signing statements and executive orders. But Obama has pushed this traditional prerogative far beyond the bounds that presidents in the past were usually careful to respect. But the ideas behind this expansion of power are not peculiar to Obama, and transcend any one man. They come from the Progressive worldview that rejects the Constitution’s philosophical vision of humans as driven by conflicting “passions and interests,” and eager to amass power in order to gratify both. The Progressives, on the contrary, believe that human nature can be improved, and that technocrats armed with new knowledge of human behavior and motivations can be entrusted with the concentrated power necessary for managing that improvement and solving the new problems created by industrialism, technology, and the other novelties of modernity.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;">In terms of the federal government, the key to this new vision is the executive branch, led by an activist president. Woodrow Wilson was quite explicit about these ideas. In 1890 he wrote of the need for a “leader of men” who has “such sympathetic and penetrative insight as shall enable him to discern quite unerringly the motives which move other men <i>in the mass</i>.” He knows “what it is that lies waiting to be stirred in the minds and purposes of groups and masses of men.” This sympathy is one “whose power is to command, to command by knowing its instrument,” and the leader possessing this “sympathy” cares only “for the external uses to which they [people] may be put.”</p>
<p style="color: #272727;">More frightening still are Wilson’s comments further expanding on this “sympathy.” “Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to <i>want</i> some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listens to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.” Gone are the notions that free people decide their own political fate and choose representatives to serve their interests and principles, their autonomy protected by the Constitutional structure of checks and balances. Now an empowered elite presumably wiser about human nature will, like Plato’s Guardians, manipulate the people’s opinions so that they make the “right” choice. These ideas are on a continuum that at the extreme end lie Mussolini’s fascism and Lenin’s communism.</p>
<p><span style="color: #272727;">The president, then, must transcend the Constitution’s outmoded limits on government power. In 1908, for example, Wilson complained that the president was merely a “legal executive” and “guiding authority in the application of the law and the execution of policy,” which is the Constitution’s charge that the president “</span>shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” For Wilson, this was too limited an authority, for the president could only veto bad laws, and was not “given an opportunity to make good ones.” And explicitly rejecting the Constitution’s vision of clashing “factions” driven by conflicting “passions and interests,” Wilson writes, “You cannot compound a successful government out of antagonisms.” So much for Madison’s governing principle in <i>Federalist </i>51 that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” The Progressive collectivist “people” possessing uniform interests must have a “President as the unifying force in our complex system.”</p>
<p>We see in Wilson’s writings another Progressive assumption still with us today: defining Americans as an abstract, collectivist “people.” This unitary “people” rejects the Founders’ recognition of America’s great variety of economic interests, passions such as religion, and regional folkways that characterize the citizens of the United States. Indeed, it is just this variety that threatened political freedom, for a flawed human nature is intoxicated by power, and always seeks more power in order to gratify its peculiar needs and interests by forming “factions” of the like-minded. As John Adams wrote in 1787, the “selfish passions in the generality of men” are the “strongest.” Knowing that this selfish inclination is rooted in a human nature unchanged since the days of Athens, and so cannot be improved or eliminated, the Founders sought merely to balance faction against faction so that no one faction can amass enough power to threaten the freedom of all.</p>
<p>The proponents of centralized power, however, require a more homogeneous “people” to justify expanding government power. Such a “people” will have similar interests that only the central government can effectively identify and serve. Interests like “social justice,” “social duties,” and “social efficiency,” cannot be fulfilled by local or state governments, or by the parochial aims of civil society or the market, or by churches divided by sectarian beliefs. The federal technocrats of government agencies, more knowledgeable than the people about what they really want and need, must be given the power to trump those clashing local interests and manage polices that serve the larger “social” good––as defined not by the people in all their variety and complexity, but by federal bureaucrats and technocrats.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;"><span style="color: #000000;">Go back to Obama’s “pen and phone” statement and read what follows to see this same collectivist vision at work: </span>“And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.” The president assumes that in a country of some 330 million people, “the help they need” and their views on improving job creation, education, or job training are all the same, and thus one man can formulate policies that advance them, cutting out the several hundred representative of Congress, and state and local governments.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;">The obvious danger is one evident from the 20<sup>th</sup> century’s history of totalitarianism from the Bolsheviks to the Khmer Rouge. Elites convinced of their superior knowledge and insight into human behavior and the proper aims people should pursue, demand the coercive power to achieve these goods. But true to the Founders’ vision of a flawed human nature, power is “of an encroaching nature,” as Madison and Washington both warned. It intoxicates and corrupts those who possess it. Moreover, it requires weakening the autonomy and freedom of the people, whose various interests will contradict the “vision of the anointed,” as Thomas Sowell dubs them, who claim to know what’s best for everybody, and use their power to neutralize or eliminate those who resist this superior wisdom.</p>
<p style="color: #272727;">We need to recognize that for over a century this Progressive vision has revolutionized the federal government, which now has a size, scope, cost, and coercive power that would have horrified the Founders. The ideas underlying this vision––for example, the notion that the federal government and its agencies are better able to “solve problems” than are local and state governments, or civil society––are taken for granted as self-evident even by many Republicans. Thus focusing on the spectacular incompetence of Barack Obama can blind us to the dangers that will continue after he has left office. Obama vowed to “fundamentally transform America,” but that transformation had started long before he became president.</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/bruce-thornton/to-hell-with-the-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Writers Opposing Hamas: Targets of Death</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/magdi/writers-opposing-hamas-targets-of-death/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=writers-opposing-hamas-targets-of-death</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/magdi/writers-opposing-hamas-targets-of-death/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 04:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Magdi Khalil]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al jazeera]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death threats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defending Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=240086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The price I pay for defending Israel.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hamas.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-240139" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hamas.jpg" alt="hamas" width="360" height="235" /></a>On August 19th, 2014, I was invited to participate in the famous talk show &#8220;The Opposite Direction&#8221; which airs on Al-Jazeera channel, in an episode entitled “Who is the winner in the current Gaza war?” The opposite side of the debate was represented by Hamas leader Ibrahim Hamami. In the course of discussions which lasted an hour, I plainly explained my point of view, clarifying that the current conflict does not constitute an ordinary war, but rather an attack initiated by a designated terrorist movement &#8211; classified as such even in some Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirate – against a member State of the United Nations. I pointed out that Hamas did not abide by ethical or legal rules in that conflict, taking advantage of schools, hospitals, mosques, bedrooms and even churches to launch missiles at Israel. Fully anticipating that Israel would respond by bombarding those launching points, Hamas managed to show the World an Israel which is killing children and targeting schools, mosques and hospitals. The MEMRI Foundation has translated a short clip of my speech, which can be accessed <a href="http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4441.htmegards">at this link</a>.</p>
<p>When the Hamas member failed to counter this argument in a rational manner, he started hurling accusations and insults, calling me an Arab Zionist, and mockingly suggesting that I should change my name to Magdi Cohen, or Magdi Avichay. This verbal assault went on for the duration of the show, but the surprise came at the end of the episode, when he explicitly called for my death, stating that getting rid of Arab Zionists is a primary duty that should precede the elimination of the Zionist occupiers. This was a message broadcasted on a channel watched by tens of millions in the region&#8211;a channel which is also considered the preferred channel for terrorist Muslims worldwide. This explicit threat can be viewed at the end of the above mentioned clip.</p>
<p>After the episode aired, I received more than 500 insulting messages from Palestinians and Arabs, including five messages with explicit death threats, stating that a plan to kill me was already in place.</p>
<p>The only language Hamas knows to speak is one of terror and murder. When unable to refute arguments, they resort to bullets. The rabid attempts to intimidate me are an attack against the right to opinion and expression.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, Abraham Hamami &#8211; who issued this death threat while we were live on the air on a widely viewed channel, making sure that this call would reach Islamist terrorists across the world &#8211; is a London resident and a British citizen. From London also came the terrorist who killed American journalist James Foley a few weeks ago. So, will the British Security Service simply wait till the next crime is committed at the hands of this Hamas terrorist? Why is the U.K. keeping silent about the likes of these terrorists until the silence is forcefully broken by a criminal act? Why the silence when Hamas is in fact classified as a terrorist organization in the European Union?</p>
<p>This article is meant as a message for the UK MI5 Security Service and the American FBI, so that measures may be taken against this threat.</p>
<p>As for me, I will not shy away from stating the truth as I perceive it, and will continue to express my opinions openly. Yet, the free world needs to pay attention to the design of Muslim extremists to suppress freedom of opinion and expression, whether under claim of Islamophobia, showing disrespect to Islam(Blasphemy), or defending Israel. They aim to silence dissenting voices, and they are not above committing murder to achieve that end.</p>
<p>The freedom of opinion and expression is in peril in the Western World itself, as a result of the actions of Muslim extremists. The free world has to defend the liberties that were paid for with the lives of millions in the West, until Freedom eventually became a reality to be enjoyed and appreciated. Conversely, we are now faced with Muslim extremists armed with Sixth Century perceptions, who are intent on threatening the freedom of expression in the twenty-first century.</p>
<p><em>Magdi Khalil is Executive Director of the Middle East Freedom Forum.</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>
<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/magdi/writers-opposing-hamas-targets-of-death/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iran: The Worst Enemy of Freedom of the Press and Internet</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/iran-the-worst-enemy-of-freedom-of-the-press-and-internet/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=iran-the-worst-enemy-of-freedom-of-the-press-and-internet</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/iran-the-worst-enemy-of-freedom-of-the-press-and-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 04:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Majid Rafizadeh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rouhani]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=237723</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Crackdown in the Islamic Republic. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/201421222181573786411_Iran-ranked-173rd-in-the-world-on-press-freedoms.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-237724" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/201421222181573786411_Iran-ranked-173rd-in-the-world-on-press-freedoms.jpg" alt="201421222181573786411_Iran-ranked-173rd-in-the-world-on-press-freedoms" width="295" height="207" /></a>In the last few weeks, under the presidency of the so-called moderate Hassan Rouhani, the Islamic Republic has ratcheted up its crackdown on the press, journalists, bloggers, Internet users, and activists.</p>
<p>More recently, four journalists have been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/world/meast/iran-detained-journalists/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">arrested</span></a>. One of the journalists works for the<i> Washington Post</i> and is an Iranian-American dual citizen (his wife is also detained), while two other freelance photojournalists who are American citizens have also been held. Although the writings of the Iranian-American dual citizens were not completely and outright against the Islamic Republic of Iran, nevertheless, the authorities have detained them.</p>
<p>In 2014, according to the <a href="http://www.cpj.org/blog/2014/07/the-2009-iran-crackdown-continues-today.php"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Committee to Protect Journalist</span></a>, several other domestic journalists in the Islamic Republic were arrested, including Saba Azarpeik, a reformist journalist working for the weekly <i>Tejarat-e Farda</i> and the daily <i>Etemad, </i>Iranian documentary filmmaker Mahnaz Mohammadi was sentenced to five years in prison, 11 staff members of Pat Shargh Govashir and the news website <i>Narenji</i>, <i>Nardebaan</i> and <i>Negahbaan </i>were sentenced to eleven years in prison<i>, </i>Mehdi Khazali, a blogger, Reihaneh Tabatabei, a journalist with <i>Shargh </i>and <i>Bahar, </i>Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, an Iranian journalist who received an award from the CPJ International Press Freedom, and Marzieh Rasouli, a reporter for cultural issues, to name a few.</p>
<p>The Islamic Republic has been utilizing several crucial institutions to crack down on press, bloggers, and Internet users. One is the Islamic Republic’s security forces, Nyrouhaye Amniyat, and the second one is Iran’s Islamic Judiciary system. The laws are being legalized by the judiciary system for sentencing and imprisoning the journalists and bloggers. In addition, these institutions also utilize other militia and paramilitary groups, such as Sazmane Basij-e Mostaz&#8217;afin, &#8220;the Organization for Mobilization of the Oppressed,&#8221; in order to achieve their goals and objectives. In addition, in March 2012, the Supreme Council for Cyberspace was <a href="http://surveillance.rsf.org/en/iran/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">set up</span></a> in order to centralize and more efficiently monitor Internet users.</p>
<p>Other monitoring institutions, when it comes to cracking down on Internet users, include the Cyber Unit of the Revolutionary Guard as well as the Islamic Republic Revolutionary Court, which have ratcheted up their censorship.</p>
<p>The reasons for the legality are justified by factors such as insulting the religion of Islam and governmental officials, endangering the national security of the Islamic Republic, spreading propaganda, insulting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as offending the values and principles of Shiite Islam.</p>
<p>According to the official <a href="http://www.irna.ir/fa/News/81235378/%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%88%D9%82%DB%8C_-_%D9%82%D8%B6%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C/%D9%85%D8%AD%DA%A9%D9%88%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA_%D9%87%D8%B4%D8%AA_%D9%81%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84_%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%B3_%D8%A8%D9%88%DA%A9%DB%8C_%D8%A8%D9%87_127_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84_%D8%AD%D8%A8%D8%B3"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Islamic Republic News Agency<i> </i>(IRNA)</span></a>, eight Facebook users were recently sentenced by the Islamic Republic’s judiciary system to a total of 127 years in prison. Their crimes ranged from insulting governmental officials and the religion of Islam, to risking the national security of the Islamic Republic.</p>
<p>In another report by <a href="http://www.kaleme.com/1393/03/05/klm-185771/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Persian Website</span></a>, Kalame, eight Facebook users were sentenced to a combination of 123 years in prison. According to <i>Kalame</i>, the sentences are as follows: Roya Saberi Nejad Nobakht, 20 years sentence in prison; Amir Goulestani, a sentence of 20 years and one day; Masoud Ghasem Khani, 19 years and 91 days in prison; Faribourz Kardar Far, 18 years and 91 days in prison; Seyed Masood Seyyed Talebi, 15 years and one day in prison; Amin (Fareed) Akrami Pour, 13 years in prison; Mehdi Rei Shahri, 11 years in prison; and Naghmeh Shah Savandy Shirazi, 7 years and 91 days in prison.</p>
<p><span style="color: #0433ff;"><a href="http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2014/05/facebook-sentence/">According to</a></span> the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran “The ruling by Judge Mohammad Moghiseh, which is harsher than what the law allows, is clearly intended to spread fear among Internet users in Iran, and dissuade Iranians from stepping outside strict state controls on cyberspace. ”</p>
<p>Iran has been labeled as one of the enemies of the Internet by Reporters Without Borders. In addition to Reporters Without Borders, the <a href="https://cpj.org/reports/2000/05/enemies-00.php"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)</span></a> has also labeled the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the worst enemies of the freedom of press.</p>
<p>Apparently, Rouhani, who is perceived by Western countries as a good change for the Islamic Republic, has been silent about and complicit in these atrocities and human rights violations. The reasons are evident. First of all, any political figure who is allowed to run for presidency, and has the blessing of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supports the ideals of the Islamic revolutions, as well as the attempt to maintain the current status quo of the Islamic Republic’s political and ideological structure.</p>
<p>In that respect, when it comes to speaking up for ordinary people and human rights violations, all Iranian presidents across the political spectrum, including the reformist presidents (such as former president Muhammad Khatami), pragmatist ones (former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani) and moderate and realist presidents (such as Hassan Rouhani), prioritize their own political power, social and economic interests. They attempt to protect the Iranian government, and maintain their socio-political and socio-economic status. Second of all, the Iranian presidents are all political figureheads who attempt to set the Supreme Leader’s and the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy tone on the international arena. Third, and more fundamentally, the Islamic Republic is run by the security forces, the judiciary system, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Supreme Leader. All these sectors reports directly to Khamenei.</p>
<p>While the Obama administration and other Western powers praise the Iranian regime for the change in its foreign policy regarding nuclear issues, it would be constructive and encouraging if the West would also put more emphasis on the heightened human rights violations and crack down on journalists.</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/majid-rafizadeh/iran-the-worst-enemy-of-freedom-of-the-press-and-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Progressive Assault on the Legacy of Independence Day</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-progressive-assault-on-the-legacy-of-independence-day/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-progressive-assault-on-the-legacy-of-independence-day</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-progressive-assault-on-the-legacy-of-independence-day/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:58:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th of July]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declaration of independence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independence Day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King George III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235562</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America relives the days of King George III.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/iStock_000023736786Small.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235564" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/iStock_000023736786Small-450x299.jpg" alt="Three Sparklers with American Flag" width="281" height="187" /></a>Independence Day is a good time to revisit the foundations of our political order, especially given the long record of Barack Obama and the Democrats’ disregard for the Constitution. The members of the Continental Congress who met in Philadelphia in July 1776 sought their independence from England in order to recover their rights that had been violated by a tyrant, and to establish political freedom and autonomy so that those rights could be protected from further erosion. For a century now the Progressive ideology has insidiously undermined that legacy of autonomy in a slow-motion revolution that aims to “fundamentally transform America.”</p>
<p>The Declaration of Independence contains a statement of principles that justify the indictment of George III that makes up the bulk of the document. The principles are straightforward: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.––That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The key point is that rights are not the gifts of men, for such rights can be taken back by the same power that bestows them. Rather, they are the defining elements of human nature bestowed by the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Individual autonomy is the birthright of all, and can be limited only by the consent of the people, who establish collective power residing in government for specific, limited purposes, and they can take that power back when government exceeds those legitimate purposes. A decade later the framers of the Constitution would enumerate these limited powers and institutionalize the purposes for which they can be used. Thus the significance of the Declaration must be found in the political order created a decade later to institutionalize the principles of 1776.</p>
<p>For the framers, political power had to be divided, balanced, and limited because human nature was prone to corruption, empowering “passions and interests” that threatened freedom. This suspicion of concentrated power defined the political thinking of the framers, who agreed with Machiavelli that “it is necessary to whoever arranges to found a Republic and establish laws in it, to presuppose that all men are bad and that they will uses their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity.” They had learned from history and their own experience as subjects of an unjust ruler that a flawed human nature meant no man or elite, whether defined by birth, wealth, or education, can be trusted with power for too long. Such power inevitably becomes tyrannical, as the “repeated injuries and usurpations” of George III, copiously documented in the Declaration, demonstrated. Yet the mass of people, if given unlimited freedom, could be just as tyrannical and oppressive, just as prone to the corruption of power. <span style="color: #362f2f;">To protect those “unalienable rights” and guarantee the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then, a political order had to be created that, in the words of Orestes Brownson, protected “the sovereignty of the people without social despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy.”</span></p>
<p style="color: #362f2f;">The Constitution crafted a decade after the Declaration brilliantly institutionalized the protection of freedom and autonomy at the same time it created a unified central government to perform the functions beyond the powers of the individual states. It did not create the federal government to “solve problems,” for local communities, families, civil society, and state governments were better suited for that task, as they were closer to and more intimate with the great variety of the American people and their mores, religious denominations, customs, and interests.</p>
<p style="color: #362f2f;">Obama and his Progressive brethren have attacked the philosophical assumptions of the Declaration and the Constitution root and branch.  A century ago Progressives were calling for a “living” Constitution more suitable for modern times than the allegedly outmoded one of the founders. Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1913, “All that progressives ask or desire is permission––in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution’ is the scientific word––to interpret the Constitution according to Darwinian principle.” This same assumption has been the credo of modern progressives like Ezra Klein, who in 2010 dismissed our foundational document, claiming “<span style="color: #000000;">the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago [sic] and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.” As a candidate in 2008 Obama similarly complained that the Constitution was a mere “charter of negative liberties” that “says what the states can’t do to you, says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” </span></p>
<p>Some see this statement as ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of an alleged constitutional scholar. But in fact this sentiment is completely in line with Wilson’s desire to interpret the Constitution “according to a Darwinian principle,” since humans have changed and society advanced so much that only a technocratic elite armed with new knowledge can be trusted to run society for everybody else, and to know what government “must do on your behalf.” What such a Constitution would be evolving <i>from</i>, of course, would be the idea of a limited federal government that respects the autonomy of citizens and states, and leaves them free to rule themselves and solve their own problems.</p>
<p style="color: #362f2f;">Consistent with this greater role for the federal government has been the expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress, evident in Obama’s unilateral rewriting, adapting, or ignoring the laws. This encroaching executive power is also a development the early Progressives explicitly called for. Long before he became President, Wilson dreamed of a national leader more evocative of Benito Mussolini than George Washington. Such a leader would “know what it is that lies waiting to be stirred in the minds and purposes of groups and masses of men,” and would use this knowledge “to command” men and discover “the external uses to which they may be put . . . There are men to be moved: how shall he move them?” Later, when writing specifically of the president’s powers, he complained that under the Constitution, “He was empowered [by the veto] to prevent bad laws, but he was not to be given an opportunity to make good ones.” Has any president since acted as vigorously on this anti-constitutional wish to bypass Congress and make laws by fiat than Barack Obama and his “pen and phone”? He has made 41 changes to the Affordable Care Act law alone, and more recently has threatened to take unilateral executive action on immigration, all in violation of the constitutional injunction that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Obviously, an imperial president who “moves” men and knows better than they what is good for them is antithetical to the spirit of the Declaration and its principle of liberty possessed by humans as part of their human nature.</p>
<p style="color: #362f2f;">Finally, the bloated federal government and its regulatory regime also challenge the ideal of self-government and citizen autonomy celebrated in the Declaration and institutionalized in the Constitution. Just the Environmental Protection Agency alone enforces 7,000 rules that cost the economy $350 billion a year, and that doesn’t count Obama’s pending assault on coal-fired power plants. In 2012, the <i>Federal Register</i>, which publishes new rules and final changes to existing rules, weighed in at nearly 79,000 pages. The Code of Federal Regulations, which publishes permanent rules and regulations, totaled over 174,000, with over 1 million individual regulatory restrictions. The Competitive Enterprise Institute reckons the annual cost of obeying all these rules and regulations at $1.8 trillion a year. But more important than the cost of this regulatory behemoth backed by the coercive power of the government is the erosion of our freedom and autonomy, the very foundational principles of the Declaration. Indeed, it recalls the Declaration’s indictment of George III, who “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”</p>
<p style="color: #362f2f;">Needless to say, all these Progressive assaults on the spirit of the Declaration and the structure of the Constitution have accelerated and worsened under Obama, and once again recall the Declaration’s condemnation of George III for “taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our government,” and for declaring himself “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” In short, the Obama administration has created a regime undermining the foundational principles of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The founders had a word for such an assault on freedom––tyranny.</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/bruce-thornton/the-progressive-assault-on-the-legacy-of-independence-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>87</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Language of Despotism</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-language-of-despotism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-language-of-despotism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/the-language-of-despotism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 04:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orwell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tyranny]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Understanding the Left's weapon of choice. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #000000;"><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/war-is-peace.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235326" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/war-is-peace-450x337.jpg" alt="war-is-peace" width="279" height="209" /></a>Originally published by <a href="http://www.hoover.org/research/language-despotism">Defining Ideas</a>. </em></p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Long before <em>1984</em> gave us the adjective “Orwellian” to describe the political corruption of language and thought, Thucydides observed how factional struggles for power make words their first victims. Describing the horrors of civil war on the island of Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides wrote, “Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.” Orwell explains the reason for such degradation of language in his essay “Politics and the English Language”: “Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Tyrannical power and its abuses comprise the “indefensible” that must be verbally disguised. The gulags, engineered famines, show trials, and mass murder of the Soviet Union required that it be a “regime of lies,” as the disillusioned admirer of Soviet communism Pierre Pascal put it in 1927.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Our own political and social discourse must torture language in order to disguise the failures and abuses of policies designed to advance the power and interests of the “soft despotism,” as Tocqueville called it, of the modern Leviathan state and its political caretakers. Meanwhile, in foreign policy the transformation of meaning serves misguided policies that endanger our security and interests.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">One example from domestic policy recently cropped up in Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s dissent in the <em>Schuette </em>decision, which upheld the Michigan referendum banning racial preferences. In her dissent, Sotomayor called for replacing the term  “affirmative action” with “race-sensitive admissions.” But “affirmative action” was itself a euphemism for the racial quotas in use in college admissions until they were struck down in the 1978 <em>Bakke</em> decision. To salvage racial discrimination, which any process that gives race an advantage necessarily requires, <em>Bakke</em> legitimized yet another euphemism, “diversity,” as a compelling state interest that justified taking race into account in university admissions.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Thus the most important form of “diversity” for the university became the easily quantifiable one of race. Not even socio-economic status can trump it, as the counsel for the University of Texas admitted during oral arguments in <em>Fisher vs. University of Texas</em> last year, when he implied that a minority applicant from a privileged background would add more diversity to the university than a less privileged white applicant. All these verbal evasions are necessary for camouflaging the fact that any process that discriminates on the basis of race violates the Civil Rights Act ban on such discrimination. Promoting an identity politics predicated on historical victimization and the equality of result is more important than the principle of equality before the law, and this illiberal ideology must be hidden behind distortions of language and vague phrases like “race-sensitive” and “diversity.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Another example can be found in the recently released report from the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. The report is the basis for the government’s numerous policy and procedural suggestions to universities and colleges in order to help them “live up to their obligation to protect students from sexual violence.” Genuine sexual violence, of course, needs to be investigated, adjudicated, and punished to the full extent of the law by the police and the judicial system. But the “sexual assault” and “sexual violence” the Obama administration is talking about is something different.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">At the heart of the White House report is the oft-repeated 2007 statistic that 20 percent of female college students have been victims of “sexual assault,” which most people will understand to mean rape or sexual battery. Yet as many critics of the study have pointed out, that preposterous number––crime-ridden Detroit’s rape rate is 0.05 percent––was achieved by redefining “sexual assault” to include even consensual sexual contact when the woman was drunk, and behaviors like “forced kissing” and “rubbing up against [the woman] in a sexual way, even if it is over [her] clothes.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">The vagueness and subjectivity of such a definition is an invitation to women to abandon personal responsibility and agency by redefining clumsy or boorish behavior as “sexual assault,” a phrase suggesting physical violence against the unwilling. As one analyst of the flawed study has reported, “three-quarters of the female students who were classified as victims of sexual assault by incapacitation did not believe they had been raped; even when only incidents involving penetration were counted, nearly two-thirds did not call it rape.” As many have pointed out, if genuine sexual assault were happening, colleges would be calling in the police, not trying the accused in campus tribunals made up of legal amateurs and lacking constitutional protections such as the right to confront and cross-examine one’s accuser.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">What matters more than protecting college women against a phantom epidemic of rape, then, is the need to expand government power into the social lives of college students, empowering the federal bureaucrats, university administrators, and ideological programs like women’s studies that all stand to benefit by this sort of coercive intrusion. This enshrining of racial and sexual ideology into law through the abuse of language has had damaging consequences, whether for the minority college students mismatched with the universities to which they are admitted, thus often ensuring their failure and disillusion; or for the young women encouraged to abandon their autonomy and surrender it to government and education bureaucrats who know better than they how to make sense of their experiences and decisions.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">In foreign policy, however, the abuse of language is positively dangerous. Since 9/11, our failure to identity the true nature of the Islamist threat and its grounding in traditional Islamic theology has led to misguided aims and tactics. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, for example, the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad––which means to fight against the enemies of Islam, which predominantly means infidels––has been redefined to serve the dubious tactic of flattering Islam in order to prevent Muslim terrorism.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Thus in 2008 the National Terrorism Center instructed its employees, “Never use the term <em>jihadist </em>or<em>mujahideen </em>in conversation to describe terrorists,” since “In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare.” Similarly, CIA chief John Brennan has asserted that jihad “is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community,” despite the fourteen centuries of evidence from the Koran, hadiths, and bloody history that jihad is in fact predominantly an obligatory armed struggle against the enemies of Islam. The reluctance to put Muslim violence in its religious context reflects not historical truth, but a public relations tactic serving the delusional strategy of appeasing Muslims into liking us.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">That’s why, to this day, the 2009 murders of 13 military personnel at Fort Hood by Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan are still classified as “workplace violence” rather than an act of terror. This despite the fact that Hasan––whose business cards had the initials “SoA,” “Soldier of Allah,” on them––shouted the traditional Islamic battle cry “Allahu Akbar” during his rampage. Or that in a presentation at Walter Reed Hospital, Hasan had put up a slide with the great commission to practice jihad that Mohammed delivered in his farewell address: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’” This command to wage jihad was echoed in 1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeini, revered as a “Grand Sign of God” for his theological acumen, and by Osama bin Laden in 2001. Those ignoring this venerable jihadist tradition must use verbal evasions like “workplace violence” and “striving in the path of God” to hide the indefensible––and failed––tactic of appeasement that prevents us from accurately understanding the religious motives of Muslim terrorists, and the extent of the Muslim world’s support for them.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">No foreign policy crisis, however, is more illustrative of the “regime of lies” and abuse of language to serve “indefensible” aims than the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The Arabs’ aim, of course, is to destroy Israel as a nation, a policy they have consistently pursued since 1948. Since military attacks have failed ignominiously, an international public relations campaign coupled to terrorist violence has been employed to weaken Israel’s morale and separate Israel from her Western allies. An Orwellian assault on language has been key to this tactic.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Examples are legion, but one is particularly insidious, here seen in a <em>New York Times</em> headline from 2011: “Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.” The common reference to “borders” in regard to what is in fact the armistice line from the 1948 Arab war against Israel is ubiquitous. Yet there has never been recognized in international law a formal “border” between Israel and what the world, in another Orwellian phrase, calls the “West Bank,” because that territory has never been part of a modern nation. Its only international legal status was as part of the British Mandate for Palestine, which was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922, and which was intended as the national homeland for the Jewish people. The Arabs’ rejection of the U.N. partition plan and their invasion of Israel in 1948 put the territory’s status in limbo once Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria, which the international community with a few exceptions refused to recognize. In 1967 Israel took it back in another defensive war against Arab aggression. Since then, its final disposition has awaited a peace treaty that will determine the international border.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">This may sound like quibbling over careless language, but the dishonest use of “border” reinforces and encodes in peoples’ minds the big lie of the conflict––that a Palestinian “nation” is being deprived of its “homeland” by Israel, a canard that didn’t become current among Arabs and the rest of the world until after the 1967 Six Day War. And this lie in turns validates the common use of “occupation”––which implies an illegal invasion into and control of another nation, as the Germans did to France in 1940––to describe Israel’s defensive possession of territories that have long served as launch pads for aggression against Israel. Until a peace treaty, the territory known as the “West Bank”––more accurately Judea and Samaria, the heartland of historical Israel for centuries––is <em>disputed</em>, not “occupied.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">To paraphrase Thucydides, words like “borders” and “occupation” have had their ordinary meanings changed, and been forced to take meanings that serve tyranny and aggression. And we who accept those new meanings are complicit in the resulting injustice that follows.</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/bruce-thornton/the-language-of-despotism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Constitution or Good Ideas?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/the-constitution-or-good-ideas/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-constitution-or-good-ideas</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/the-constitution-or-good-ideas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2014 04:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general welfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[welfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Which should we be ruled by? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/constitution-2-SC.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-224491" alt="Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/constitution-2-SC.jpg" width="341" height="226" /></a>Let me run through a few good ideas. I think it&#8217;s a good idea for children to eat healthful, wholesome foods. In the raising of our daughter, before-dinner treats were fresh vegetables, and after-dinner treats were mostly fruits.</p>
<p>I arrive at my gym sometime between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., at least four times a week, to lift weights and use the treadmill. During the warmer months, the treadmill is substituted by a weekly total of 40 to 60 miles on my bike. My exercise regimen is a good idea. Another good idea is to wear a bike helmet while bike riding and wear a seat belt when driving my car. Among many other good ideas is the enjoyment of two, maybe three, glasses of wine with each evening meal.</p>
<p>You say, &#8220;So what, Williams? What&#8217;s your point?&#8221; There&#8217;s no question that all of those actions, with the possible exception of the last, are indeed good ideas. As evidence that my exercise regimen is a good idea, my doctors tell me that at 78 years of age, I&#8217;m in better health and conditioning than most of their male patients many years my junior. My question to you is whether these commonly agreed-upon good ideas should become the law of the land. To be more explicit, should Congress enact a law requiring every able-bodied American to lift weights four times a week and bike 40 to 60 miles each week? Just look at all the benefits of such a law. Americans would be healthier, and that would mean lower health care costs. People would have a longer working life. Men would have the strength to protect their women and children folk from thugs. In a word, there would be no downside to the fitter population that would come from a congressional law mandating physical fitness programs. We might title such a law the &#8220;Improving American Health Act.&#8221; The law would impose fines and penalties on any able-bodied person not found to be in compliance. What congressman would have the callousness to vote against such a beneficial measure?</p>
<p>Needless to say, there would be attacks against the Improving American Health Act, launched mostly by libertarians, conservatives and some Republicans.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These people would argue that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact such a liberty-intrusive law. Their arguments would be on weak grounds. Our Constitution&#8217;s Article 1, Section 8 says, &#8220;The Congress shall have Power To &#8230; provide for the &#8230; general Welfare of the United States.&#8221; Our Constitution further empowers Congress to enact the Improving American Health Act by its Article 1, Section 3 — sometimes referred to as the commerce clause — which grants Congress the power &#8220;To regulate Commerce &#8230; among the several States.&#8221; After all, good health lends itself to more efficient interstate commerce and a larger gross domestic product. Sick Americans adversely affect interstate commerce and are a burden on economic activity.</span></p>
<p>I have no doubt that people who don&#8217;t want to see a healthier America — again, mostly libertarians, conservatives and Republicans — will bring suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Congress has no such authority under either the general welfare clause or the commerce clause. Would you prefer that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., speaking for a majority, concur by saying, &#8220;This court is guided by the U.S. Constitution, and we find no constitutional authority for the Improving American Health Act, despite Congress&#8217; nonsense claims alleging authority under the general welfare and commerce clauses&#8221;?</p>
<p>Or would you prefer that Justice Roberts, speaking for the majority, engage in mental contortions in which he agrees that forcing people to exercise exceeds congressional authority under both the commerce clause and the general welfare clause but says the Improving American Health Act is indeed constitutional under Congress&#8217; taxing authority?</p>
<p>My bottom line question is: Should we be ruled by what are seen as good ideas or by what&#8217;s permissible by the U.S. Constitution?</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/walter-williams/the-constitution-or-good-ideas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cuban Twitter — The Untold Story</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/humberto-fontova/cuban-twitter-the-untold-story/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cuban-twitter-the-untold-story</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/humberto-fontova/cuban-twitter-the-untold-story/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Humberto Fontova]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Castro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cuba]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patrick leahy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223522</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sen. Patrick Leahy champions Internet freedom everyplace on earth -- but Cuba. Why?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Twitter-censor.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-223525" alt="Twitter-censor" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Twitter-censor-350x350.jpg" width="280" height="280" /></a></span>It’s not often that a U.S. government agency gets caught red-handed abiding by its charter and performing its publicly-avowed and legislatively-approved duties. But last week the AP “broke” a long and breathless story from Havana that nailed the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) for just that.</p>
<p>In their own words, “a secret plan aimed at undermining Cuba’s communist government,” was courageously exposed by the AP’s intrepid Havana bureau.</p>
<p>Such is the magnitude of the scandal that a red-faced and snarling Senator Patrick Leahy is now chairing hearings on Capitol Hill where he grills USAID director Rajiv Shah on his agency’s “<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/sen-patrick-leahy-rips-cuban-twitter-cockamamie-idea/">cockamamie!” plan.</a></p>
<p>The diabolical cloak and dagger scheme hatched in 2008 during George Bush’s term (which may account for Democratic Senator Leahy’s dudgeon) amounted to setting up a “Cuban Twitter” named ZunZuneo (Cuban slang for a hummingbird’s tweet) in order for Cuban youths to text each other without snooping by Castro’s KGB-mentored secret police.</p>
<p>Caught your breath back? Yes, amazingly such a scheme somehow escaped the imaginations of Ian Fleming, John Le Carré <i>and</i> Tom Clancy.</p>
<p>In sum, a brief effort was made (lasting from 2008-12 and involving 68,000 of Castro’s hapless subjects) to allow Cubans (who pre-Castro enjoyed more phones and TVs per-capita than most Europeans) to communicate with each other in the same manner as do teenagers today in such places as Sudan, Papua New Guinea and Laos.</p>
<p>Understandably this scheme to facilitate a tiny window of freedom for a tiny fraction of their subjects greatly alarmed Cuba’s Stalinist rulers. After all, it wasn’t easy converting a free and prosperous nation with a higher per-capita income than half of Europe, a flood of immigrants from same and the first Mercedes dealership in the Americas into a totalitarian pesthole that repels Haitians and features a glorious rebirth of communications by bongo-drum and transport by oxcart.</p>
<p>Well, the news was barely broken by Castro’s U.S. media allies when, as mentioned, Castro’s U.S. legislative allies picked up the signal from Havana and erupted in outrage—not against the KGB-mentored censorship by a terror-sponsor mind you. But against the U.S. attempt to foil it.  No. This is not your father’s cold war.</p>
<p>Senator Patrick Leahy, true to his historic role as U.S. legislative messenger for Castro’s every whim and wish, promptly denounced the program as “dumb, dumb, dumb.” “What in heaven’s name are you thinking?”‘ Leahy complained to Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC about the USAID scheme. “This makes no sense at all.”</p>
<p>What really “makes no sense at all” is Senator Leahy’s hypocritical carping  during the hearings and to Andrea  Mitchell–who, by the way– is famous for gushing that  “Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly—even paternal, a thoroughly fascinating figure!”</p>
<p>Leahy’s carping features prominently in <i>all </i>the AP stories and raised a few suspicions among Cuba-watchers regarding the source of the story, because for a certain propensity Senator Leahy has long been nicknamed “Leaky Leahy,” or “Leahy the Leaker.” This propensity reached such a level that in January 1987 Senator Leahy was forced to resign as vice chair of the Intelligence Committee after leaking classified information about the Iran-Contra affair.</p>
<p>(For you millennials, “Iran-Contra” was a Reagan administration plan to foil a Castro/Soviet takeover of Nicaragua. So naturally Senator Patrick Leahy sided the communists who came within a hair of nuking us.)</p>
<p>The Senator is also an unabashed champion of <i>the very thin</i>g he now calls dumb and senseless. Here’s language from a recent Appropriations bill sponsored<i> by Leahy</i> <i>himself</i>:  <a href="http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/s1372/BILLS-113s1372pcs.pdf"><i>State, Foreign Operations Appropriations</i></a> bill:</p>
<blockquote><p><i>SEC. 7072. (a) Of the funds appropriated under titles 8 I and III of this Act, not less than $44,600,000 shall be made available for programs to promote Internet freedom globally: Provided, That such programs shall be prioritized for countries whose governments restrict freedom of expression on the Internet, and that are important to the national interests of the United State.”</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Well, as far as “restricting freedom of expression on the internet” the Stalinist Castro regime, according to rankings by Freedom House, holds top honors in the Western Hemisphere <a href="http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net-2013-global-scores">and 2<sup>nd</sup> place on planet earth.</a> In fact Senator Leahy specifically sponsors ZunZuneo –type programs for Syria, Belarus, Burma, Bahrain, Sudan and Egypt.  Yet Cuba’s ruthless and wholesale internet repression surpasses the internet restrictions by every one of these nations—and often by huge margins.</p>
<p>Given the above “inconsistencies” (let’s call them,) Senator Leahy’s monkeyshines (the snarls! The grimaces! The finger-pointing!)  during the recent hearings certainly command the professional respect of many Cuba-watchers, especially the movie and Broadway aficionados.</p>
<p>Castro’s fiefdom is also an official “state sponsor of terrorism” whose master spy managed the deepest and most damaging<i> </i>penetration of the U.S. Department of Defense in U.S. history. The spy’s name is Ana Montes, known as “Castro’s Queen Jewel” in the intelligence community.  In 2002  she was convicted of the same crimes as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg  and today she serves a 25-year sentence in Federal prison, only a plea bargain spared her from sizzling in the electric chair like the Rosenberg’s.</p>
<p>And speaking of Cuban spies. In one of their many stories exposing this hideous scandal, the AP consults one of its favorite Cuban sources Josefina Vidal, introducing her as “director of U.S. affairs at Cuba’s Foreign Ministry.” “The ZunZuneo program shows once again that the United States government has not renounced its plans of subversion against Cuba,” recites Ms Vidal.</p>
<p>It’s galling to be accused of something we no longer have the sense or guts to do, but it’s the AP’s innocuous description of Josefina Vidal that merits attention here, because in fact: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Longest-Romance-Mainstream-Media-Castro/dp/1594036675/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1376276049&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+longest+romance+humberto+fontova">Josefina Vidal was booted from the U.S. in 2003 for espionage.</a></p>
<p>This Stalinist, terror-sponsoring regime sitting 90 miles from U.S. shores also has the blood of countless American citizens on its hands, billions dollars worth of stolen U.S. property in its coffers and boasts a multi-documented record of craving to nuke us—and not only once and 50 years ago.</p>
<p>So it seems that if <i>any</i> nation merits the type of USAID attention championed by Senator Leahy its Cuba.</p>
<p>Don’t look for this anywhere in the MSM (<i>especially</i> the Associated Press!) but just three months ago the Castro regime announced that it would <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/banking-and-finance/2014/01/25/Cuba-to-freeze-foreign-funds-linked-to-al-Qaeda-Taliban.html"><i>stop</i> laundering funds linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.</a></p>
<p>You read right. In essence the Castroites answered the famous gotcha question:  “when did you stop beating your wife?”  In other words, they’re implying that for years (and during a long period preceding, during and after the 9-11 terror–atrocity) they partnered financially with America’s terrorist enemies.</p>
<p>Now <i>here’s</i> a story, it seems to many Cuba watchers, worthy of a major media expose in the U.S. But we know better by now. Cuba’s Stalinist rulers, after all, don’t bestow Havana press bureaus randomly. And like all “control-freaks” they conduct frequent “performance evaluations” to monitor the toadyism of their U.S. media hirelings.</p>
<p>So regarding their Havana bureaus, the Associated Press and MSNBC must feel very secure. And consider Senator Leahy’s Cuba visa gold-plated.</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" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage’s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/humberto-fontova/cuban-twitter-the-untold-story/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s War on the Media</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/obamas-war-on-the-media/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-war-on-the-media</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronn-torossian/obamas-war-on-the-media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronn Torossian]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committee to protect journalists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[espionage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharyl attkisson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the press fears Obama like no president before. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Freemedia160.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-223501" alt="Freemedia160" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Freemedia160.jpg" width="297" height="198" /></a></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Since Obama has the support of the national elites who like to think of themselves as &#8220;liberal,&#8221; <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">his constant attacks and pressure on journalists should be even more disconcerting to freedom-loving people – in America, and worldwide.</span></p></blockquote>
<p>This issue reared its ugly head publicly again today during an interview on Fox News with Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who quit CBS News last month, seemingly as the result of her inability to do her job due to “pressures.” The interview focused upon her comments that the Obama administration has had a &#8220;chilling effect&#8221; on news organizations, and places tremendous pressure upon journalists not to run stories which they don’t approve of. Attkisson claimed, &#8220;There is pressure coming to bear on journalists for just doing their job in ways that have never come to bear before.&#8221; “But it is particularly aggressive under the Obama administration, and I think it’s a campaign that’s very well organized, that’s designed to have sort of a chilling effect and to some degree has been somewhat successful in getting broadcast producers who don’t really want to deal with the headache of it.&#8221; <i>Amazing.</i></p>
<p>In context, after pressure a few weeks ago, the Obama Administration dropped plans to monitor newsrooms across America. As was reported in The Wall Street Journal, &#8220;Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its &#8216;Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,&#8217; or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.” Obama’s America – talk of monitoring newsrooms.</p>
<p>In this administration, journalists at The Associated Press have had their phone records pulled as the government secretly subpoenaed and seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 AP reporters in its Washington bureau and elsewhere. This included work and personal phone lines of multiple reporters, thousands of newsgathering calls on a wide variety of issues. Individual reporters from Fox News have been tracked – and <i>that is just what we know about.</i></p>
<p>Six government employees have faced felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act for leaking classified information to the press, compared with just three such prosecutions <i>in all previous U.S. administrations. </i>Given the fact that the IRS mis-used its power against conservatives, who knows what else has been done against journalists during the Obama Administration? The Obama administration, which is collecting the phone records of millions of Americans, has published an enemies list – which is political enemies who are all Americans.  <i>Where is the media and those who often speak out about the violation of civil liberties?</i></p>
<p><i>I, </i><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/ronn-torossian/"><i>Ronn Torossian</i></a><i>, and many others ask: Is it permissible for the Obama Administration to squelch media opposition?</i></p>
<p>Last year, the Committee to Protect Journalists, an international media watchdog organization, issued its first report on press freedom in the United States, and in their report, titled &#8220;The Obama Administration and the Press,” they report that President Obama has ushered in a paralyzing climate of fear for media.  The report contented that media is being severely pressured, and David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times said &#8220;This is the most closed, control-freak administration I&#8217;ve ever covered.&#8221;</p>
<p>The CPJ report said &#8220;The administration&#8217;s war on leaks to the press though the use of secret subpoenas against news organizations, its assertion through prosecution that leaking classified documents to the press is espionage or aiding the enemy; and its increased limitations on access to information that is in the public interest – all thwart a free and open discussion necessary to a democracy.&#8221; As they said, &#8220;If we consider aggressive press coverage of government activities [as] being at the core of American democracy, this tips the balance heavily in favor of the government.&#8221;</p>
<p><i>New York Times</i> public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote that the Obama era is “turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”</p>
<p>Those of us who work in <a href="http://www.5wpr.com/">public relations</a> and in the communications industry must stand up and ensure that freedom and liberty are able to thrive in the great United States of America.</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/ronn-torossian/obamas-war-on-the-media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Forgetting Freedom at Passover</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/forgetting-freedom-at-passover/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=forgetting-freedom-at-passover</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/forgetting-freedom-at-passover/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 04:53:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ayaan hirsi ali]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BDS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brendan Eich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tyranny]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the Jewish community should learn from the attacks on Brendan Eich and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/passover.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-223280" alt="passover" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/passover-450x300.jpg" width="315" height="210" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-one-Forgetting-freedom-at-Passover-348232">Jerusalem Post</a>. </em></p>
<p>Passover, which begins on Monday night, is the festival of freedom.</p>
<p>The holiday reminds us of the brutal enslavement of the Jews by Pharaoh and the Egyptians. We recall their midnight flight from Egypt, pursued by the mighty Egyptian army, and God’s miraculous rescue of the Jews at the shores of the Red Sea. We remember how Moses led them for 40 years in the desert, and taught them what it means to be a nation, and what it means to be free.</p>
<p>We repeat the story of enslavement, flight, redemption and freedom each year at Passover, because our sages wanted to ensure that we never forget the value of freedom, and remain vigilant in our fight for it. In Israel, where our freedom is physically threatened, most Jews understand and live by the lessons of Passover.</p>
<p>But something is happening to the Jews in America.</p>
<p>More and more, every day we see American Jews embracing intellectual bondage. We see American Jewish leaders embracing the intolerant, who seek to constrain freedom, and shunning those who fight for freedom and the rights of Jews and other threatened peoples and groups.</p>
<p>To a large degree, this rejection of the lessons of the Exodus among the American Jewish community reflects the growing intolerance and tyranny of the political Left, to which most American Jews pledge their allegiance.</p>
<p>With increasing frequency, leftist groups and leaders in the US are openly acting to deny freedom of expression to their political and ideological foes, and to destroy the lives of people who oppose their dogma.</p>
<p>For instance, last week we saw the growing tyranny of gay activists. Under assault from homosexual thought police, the Mozilla Corporation of Firefox browser fame fired its CEO Brendan Eich because he once contributed $1,000 to a campaign to block the legalization of homosexual marriage in California.</p>
<p>Eich’s firing was only the latest assault by gay rights bullies on private citizens who oppose their goals.</p>
<p>The aim of these assaults is to silence all opposition to their agenda using the tools of social ostracism and intellectual terror.</p>
<p>Young Americans now embrace intellectual and social tyranny in the name of “liberal” values. In an op-ed in The Harvard Crimson, undergraduate Sandra Korn celebrated the eclipse of academic freedom in favor of what she called “justice.” Korn called for censoring conservative voices for their “offensive” views.</p>
<p>She also embraced the anti-Jewish hate movement popularly known as BDS (boycotts, divestments and sanctions of the Jewish state) as a good way to promote “justice” at the expense of freedom.</p>
<p>In Korn’s conflation of conservative voices with Zionist voices and insistence on delegitimizing and silencing both due to the “offense” they cause to “right thinking” thought enforcers like herself we see the central role that Jew hatred and the denial of Jewish freedom plays in the new wave of mass rejection of reason in favor of passions and hatred.</p>
<p>Sadly, many parts of the organized American Jewish community have embraced leftist tyranny and discrimination.</p>
<p>In 2008, the New York UJA-Federation teamed up with the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and forced the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to disinvite then-US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin from addressing a rally opposing then Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while he addressed the UN General Assembly.</p>
<p>To ensure that Palin would be denied the right to speak, the New York UJA-Federation and the JCPA threatened that her appearance would jeopardize the tax exempt status of the Conference of Presidents and other major Jewish organizations.</p>
<p>It may very well be that this threat was the first instance of leftists threatening prejudicial IRS investigations against their political foes as a means of ensuring obedience to their agenda.</p>
<p>The Palin affair was a rarity in the community. This isn’t because voices of staunch Zionists are usually accepted. Rather it is because such voices are ignored and shunned as a general practice by the major American Jewish organizations, in New York and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Palin’s invitation was an oversight.</p>
<p>While fervent Zionists are silenced, post-Zionists and anti-Zionists are legitimized and staunchly defended.</p>
<p>Six years after Palin was brutally disinvited, in the name of cultivating a “wide tent,” the same New York UJA-Federation and JCPA invited anti-Israel organizations that support the boycott of Jewish Israeli businesses to take part in the annual pro-Israel parade.</p>
<p>Three such organizations, Partners for a Progressive Israel, the New Israel Fund and B’Tselem all call for a boycott of Jewish businesses operating beyond the 1949 armistice lines. All three groups have played roles in mainstreaming the BDS movement.</p>
<p>In Israel, the public understands that boycotts are about mainstreaming hatred and bigotry just as much as they are about economic strangulation. That is why in 2011 the Knesset passed the anti-boycott law which allows all Israeli entities to sue groups calling for boycotts against them for civil damages, and bars such groups from participating in state tenders.</p>
<p>But in the American Jewish community, these groups are defended and legitimized.</p>
<p>Disgusted at their community leadership’s double standard of tolerance and support for foes of Israel and intolerance for supporters of Israel, a consortium of organizations and synagogues organized a protest against the inclusion of anti-Israel organizations in the Israel Day Parade.</p>
<p>After weeks of protests in the press and on social media sites, on Tuesday some 200 people demonstrated outside the UJA-Federation building in New York and demanded that the boycott supporters and abettors be shunned.</p>
<p>It was an important act of defiance.</p>
<p>The group includes such stalwart organizations as Americans for a Safe Israel, Americans for Peace and Tolerance, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, JCC Watch, the National Conference on Jewish Affairs, and the National Council of Young Israel.</p>
<p>These groups have joined together in the past to protest against UJA-Federation funding of institutions such as the 92nd Street Y and the New York JCC, which have provided platforms for Jew-haters and BDS supporters.</p>
<p>Their protest was vital. It would be a tragedy if the thuggish behavior of the Jewish community leaders went unopposed. But it is hard to see how the protesters can change the situation.</p>
<p>The rot runs deep.</p>
<p>Consider Brandeis University’s craven and intolerant administration.</p>
<p>Brandeis was founded as a traditionally Jewish university in 1948, the year that Israel was established.</p>
<p>But whereas Israel has remained faithful to its sovereign duty to cultivate and defend Jewish freedom and engender a liberal democracy, over the years, Brandeis has largely abandoned its mission of standing up to intolerance, and protecting Jewish rights and those of other threatened groups.</p>
<p>Case in point is its obscene treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.</p>
<p>Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim who suffered genital mutilation as a child in Somalia and at age 21 fled to Holland to avoid a forced marriage.</p>
<p>After liberating herself, Hirsi Ali could have settled into a quiet European life. Instead, she dedicated her life to championing the rights of women and girls in Islamic societies.</p>
<p>For the past decade, Hirsi Ali has lived under an Islamic death sentence for her work. She can go nowhere without bodyguards.</p>
<p>In 2006, despite her membership in the Dutch parliament, Hirsi Ali was forced to flee to the US, when the Dutch government refused to continue to protect her.</p>
<p>In the US, as in Holland, she continues to campaign for the rights of women and girls in Islamic society.</p>
<p>Most recently, she was the executive producer of a new documentary film called Honor Diaries, which describes the plight of Muslim women and girls living in societies where they risk murder at the hands of their family members if they refuse to live in abject humiliation and submission to the misogyny of Islamic law.</p>
<p>Several months ago, Brandeis offered to confer an honorary doctorate on Hirsi Ali for her work on behalf of women and girls.</p>
<p>When the leftist and Muslim thought police in the Brandeis student body and faculty got wind of the university’s plan to honor her, they joined forces with the Council on American-Islamic Relations to force the administration to cancel the honorary degree.</p>
<p>CAIR claims to be a Muslim civil rights group. And yet, the group that purports to care about the civil rights of Muslims is waging a nationwide campaign to bar screenings of Honor Diaries, at universities around the country.</p>
<p>When Fox News’s intrepid host Megyn Kelly asked CAIR leaders this week how they can object to a film that seeks to help Muslims, they said they don’t have a problem with its content. They object to the fact that it was produced by Jews (also known as “Islamophobes”).</p>
<p>Far from being a civil rights group, CAIR is a pro- Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood organization. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas financing trial against the Holyland Foundation.</p>
<p>And yet, on Wednesday, Brandeis sided with CAIR and the thought police, against Hirsi Ali. Brandeis canceled its plan to confer its honorary doctorate on her.</p>
<p>And just as is the case with the New York UJA-Federation and the JCPA, Brandeis has no problem with double standard. As Daniel Mael, a Brandeis senior, noted in an interview with Andrew Breitbart, in 2006 Brandeis conferred an honorary degree on playwright and screenwriter Tony Kushner, the outspoken foe of Israel. Kushner has claimed that Israel’s establishment was a “mistake,” and that “it would have been better if Israel never happened.” His work, particularly the film Munich, is replete with demonization of Israel and of the notion of Jewish power.</p>
<p>Mael noted that at the time, then-Brandeis president Jehuda Reinhartz defended his decision to honor Kushner by arguing, “Mr. Kushner is not being honored because he is a Jew, and he is not being honored for his political opinions. Brandeis is honoring him for his extraordinary achievements as one of this generation’s foremost playwrights, whose work is recognized in the arts and also addresses Brandeis’s commitment to social justice.”</p>
<p>In other words, Brandeis’s commitment to “social justice” involves shunning defenders of Muslim women and girls and celebrating foes of the Jewish state, which ensures Jewish freedom.</p>
<p>The work of activists like Mael, and of the trenchant demonstrators in New York is extremely important. But it is hard to be optimistic about the future freedom of America in general or of the Jewish community. Aside from the National Council of Young Israel, no major American Jewish organization agreed to sponsor the protesters’ call for pro-BDS groups to be disinvited from the Israel Parade.</p>
<p>When the leaders of the Jewish American community – like their fellow leftists – side with forces of intolerance and discrimination and against Israel’s stalwart defenders and opponents of the oppression endemic in Islamic societies, it does not bode well for the future.</p>
<p>It is my holiday prayer that on Monday night, they will remember that Passover is not about eating matza. It is about the price of freedom, and why that price is worth paying.</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/caroline-glick/forgetting-freedom-at-passover/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Maoism and the Black Panthers to Conservatism &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/from-maoism-and-the-black-panthers-to-conservatism-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=from-maoism-and-the-black-panthers-to-conservatism-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/from-maoism-and-the-black-panthers-to-conservatism-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arabic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Panthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Duffy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonie Darwish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychological characteristics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=222764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Film producer John Duffy shares his personal journey from communism to the belief in American freedom and liberty. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cultural_revolution.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-222768" alt="cultural_revolution" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cultural_revolution.jpg" width="268" height="352" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>S</b></a><b><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>ubscribe</b></a></b></strong><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 style="text-align: left;">This week&#8217;s <strong>Glazov Gang</strong> episode was joined by <strong> John Duffy, </strong>a film producer from the Bronx<strong>.  </strong>He joined the Gang to discuss his journey from Maoism and venerating the Black Panthers to conservatism:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4GFJorLVhdI" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss this week&#8217;s second episode with<strong> Nonie Darwish, </strong>a modern day freedom fighter and the author of<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Devil-Dont-Know-Revolutions/dp/1118133390"> <em>The Devil We Don&#8217;t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East</em>.  </a></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">She joined the Gang to discuss: <em>How Arabic Stifles Individualism and Psychological Growth</em>:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IYogCKcU4iM" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>To watch previous <i>Glazov Gang</i> episodes, </b><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><b>Click Here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><b>LIKE</b></a><b> Jamie Glazov’s </b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov"><b>Fan Page.</b></a><b></b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/from-maoism-and-the-black-panthers-to-conservatism-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Rise of American Totalitarianism</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/the-rise-of-american-totalitarianism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-rise-of-american-totalitarianism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/the-rise-of-american-totalitarianism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2014 04:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brendan Eich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[totalitarianism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223044</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A country on the precipice. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Obama-big-brother.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-223047" alt="Obama-big-brother" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Obama-big-brother.jpg" width="288" height="197" /></a>Last Thursday, Mozilla, the company that&#8217;s home to the web browser Firefox, forced the resignation of CEO Brendan Eich. What, precisely, had Eich done wrong? Back in 2008, Eich had donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 effort backing traditional marriage in California. Dating website OKCupid posted a ban on Firefox traffic, issuing a message to Firefox users instead: &#8220;Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.&#8221; That ban reportedly prompted the action at Mozilla.</p>
<p>Of course, it was the people pushing for Eich&#8217;s ouster who were enforcing &#8220;misery, shame, and frustration.&#8221; Eich had never brought his politics into the workplace. Mozilla had no history of treating homosexuals differently, and no single instance of Eich doing so could be documented. Nonetheless, he had violated the dictates of the Thought Police. And thus he was ousted.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a disturbing story, to be sure. But it&#8217;s also just the tip of the iceberg: Unfortunately, the same folks administering the private Thought Police would love to extend their control into the realm of government. These are not libertarians arguing for the right to hire and fire as you see fit in the private market. These are power brokers seeking to use whatever means necessary to quash opposition.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why gay couples have sued photographers, bakeries and florist shops, attempting to shut them down if they refuse to cater to same-sex weddings. That&#8217;s why the Obama administration has attempted to fine businesses that do not wish to pay for health coverage they deem sinful. The underlying idea: If the left dislikes what you do, the left can compel you not to do it. As Kevin Williamson of National Review writes, American society is quickly morphing into a system governed by T.H. <span style="line-height: 1.5em;">White&#8217;s totalitarian principle: &#8220;Everything not forbidden is compulsory.&#8221;</span></p>
<p>Freedom is secondary to the yays and nays of the governing few in this vision. Freedom is merely that which the government allows — and the government should only allow you to do the bidding of the left. If you, recognizing that sometimes people will take action with which you disagree, believe that government should stay out of people&#8217;s business, you must therefore be an advocate for discrimination and brutality. To allow Eich to work is to discriminate against gays. To allow religious businesses to reject contraceptive mandates is to push women into back alley abortions. Forget the notion of disagreeing with your opinion, but defending your right to say it — in the view of the leftist totalitarians, such a notion is inherently unworkable.</p>
<p>When fascism comes, it will come not with jackboots but with promises of a better world. The jackboots come later, when we&#8217;ve all been shamed into silence — when we&#8217;ve been taught that to allow that with which we disagree is to agree with it, and when we&#8217;ve accepted that the best method of preventing such disagreement is government power. We&#8217;re on the verge. All it will take is the silence of good people — people on all sides of the political aisle — who fall prey to the ultimate temptation in a republic: the temptation to force their values on others utilizing the machinery of government. We&#8217;re already more than halfway there.</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/ben-shapiro/the-rise-of-american-totalitarianism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>101</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Report Card For Obama &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/report-card-for-obama-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=report-card-for-obama-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/report-card-for-obama-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kai Chen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Monty Morton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report card]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The grades are in for ObamaCare and the administration's handling of the economy and foreign policy.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Obama99.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221462" alt="Obama99" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Obama99-450x343.jpg" width="315" height="240" /></a><strong>[<a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf">Subscribe</a> to <em>The Glazov Gang</em> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">LIKE</a> it on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.]</a></strong></p>
<p>This week’s<em> Glazov Gang </em>was joined by <strong> Monty Morton</strong>, a conservative entrepreneur and walking encyclopedia. He produced a <em>Report Card For Obama</em>. Don&#8217;t miss this riveting special episode where brilliant fact-filled analyses are bestowed and surprising grades are given for ObamaCare and the administration&#8217;s handling of the economy and foreign policy:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QV8MNkFpG60" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss this week&#8217;s second BLOCKBUSTER episode with <strong>Kai Chen</strong>, China&#8217;s Basketball Superstar and the author of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/One-Billion-Journey-Toward-Freedom/dp/1425985025">One In A Billion: Journey Toward Freedom</a>. </i>He joined the Gang to discuss <em>Self-Denunciation Sessions in Communist China, </em>sharing the price he paid for daring to be an individual.<em> </em></p>
<p>Kai also discussed his journey out of the tyranny of communist China to the liberty of America. <strong>[Make sure to watch his video <a href="http://www.interbasket.net/forums/showthread.php?13004-Chen-Kai-From-basketball-star-to-staunch-anti-CCP-activist">My Way</a>.]</strong> He explained how language shapes freedom and tyranny, how the cult of Maoism remains till this day in China, how Obama has annihilated America as a moral leader in the world, and much, much more:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Afjz_OFNsiI" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov">LIKE</a> Jamie Glazov’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jamie.glazov">Fan Page</a> on Facebook.</b></p>
<p><b>To watch previous <i>Glazov Gang</i> episodes, </b><a href="http://jamieglazov.com/"><b>Click Here</b></a><b>.<br />
</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/report-card-for-obama-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Homage to Maidania: Reflections on the Revolution in Ukraine</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/vladimir-tismaneanu/homage-to-maidania-reflections-on-the-revolution-in-ukraine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=homage-to-maidania-reflections-on-the-revolution-in-ukraine</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/vladimir-tismaneanu/homage-to-maidania-reflections-on-the-revolution-in-ukraine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Vladimir Tismaneanu]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maidan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ukraine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yanukovych]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=219793</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A symbol of the spontaenous anti-totalitarian search for freedom.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/lenin.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-219797" alt="lenin" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/lenin.jpg" width="350" height="197" /></a>Twenty-five years after what Pope John Paul II named the <i>annus mirabilis</i> 1989, Ukrainians succeeded in overthrowing an appallingly corrupt autocracy. Viktor Yanukovych and his clique claimed that they had come to power as a result of free elections. What they refused to admit is that such elections do not offer a blank check for murdering peaceful, non-violent expressions of civic disobedience. The Independence Square in the heart of Kiev has become a real experiment in civic self-empowerment, a symbol of spontaneous anti-totalitarian search for freedom. In this respect, the Maidan, as the place is widely known, is reminiscent of the Kronstadt anti-Bolshevik uprising in March 1921 and the anti-Stalinist militias in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. Maidania is more than a geographic location. It is, like George Orwell&#8217;s Catalonia, a state of mind.</p>
<p>Revolutions have more than one cause and a plurality of consequences. The Ukrainian Revolution was born out of desperation, anger, and outrage. It has been a massive response to Yanukovych&#8217;s acceptance of Vladimir Putin&#8217;s diktat and the implicit abandoning of the country&#8217;s national sovereignty. A Soviet-trained bureaucrat and a hyper-corrupt politician, Yanukovych had nothing but contempt for citizens as the true holders of popular sovereignty. Like Romania&#8217;s Stalinist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, founder of dynastic communism, Yanukovych ignored reality and lived in his own delusional universe. Ukrainians call him Yanushescu. He ordered the massacre of unarmend citizens in the name of an alleged national interest. In fact, he defended only his selfish interests, his survival in power. The moronic reactions of the Yanukovych gang to the enduring challenges from below sped up the revolutionary upheaval.</p>
<p>It was not oppositional political parties that ensured the demise of this dictatorship with a democratic facade. Like East Europeans in 1989, like Russians in 1991, Ukrainians have discovered the possibility of a non-Machiavellian way of practicing politics. The name for this yearning is civil society. It had been civil society that got rid of Yanukovych and foiled the opportunistic arrangements imposed by the European Union. Had it been the way the EU wished things to evolve, the Maidan would have long since capitulated.</p>
<p>Putin&#8217;s propaganda has intitiated a global campaign to besmirch the Maidan as the territory of extremism, jingoism, and resurrected Fascism. Yanukovych&#8217;s nincompoops have echoed these calumnies. No rhetorical device has been spared to portray the Maidan freedom fighters as heirs to World War II ultra-nationalists. This was precisely the device employed by Slobodan Milosevic to de-legitimize the Croatian and the Bosnian struggle for independence. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez&#8217;s successor, Nicolas Maduro, denounces the protesters as &#8220;fascists&#8221; and uses violence to smash the opposition.</p>
<p>The reality is that the Maidan has been diverse, protean, polymorphic,  ideologically flexible, and opposed to any form of extremism. I don&#8217;t deny the existence of far-right groups, but any movement like the Maidan is bound to magnetize individuals of various political persuasions. I speak here of the mainstream, not the periphery.</p>
<p>The real message of what I call Maidania is not intolerance, but tolerance, not exclusion, but inclusion, not Russia, but Europe. Maidania is a transideological, post-Utopian project. A legacy of 1989, its main value is living in truth. Ukraine&#8217;s new leaders will have to build upon the social capital of trust, truth, and tolerance created by Maidania. They will have to honor the memory of those who were murdered because they believed in the citizens&#8217; right to fight for truth.</p>
<p><i>Vladimir Tismaneanu is professor of politics at the University of Maryland (College Park) and author of numerous books including &#8220;Reinventing Politics: Eastern Europe from Stalin to Havel &#8221; (Free Press, 1992, expanded paperback 1993, Ukrainian translation, 2003) and &#8220;The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century&#8221; (University of California Press, 2012).<br />
</i></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><i><br />
</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/vladimir-tismaneanu/homage-to-maidania-reflections-on-the-revolution-in-ukraine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Elastic Clause of the Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/j-christian-adams/in-defense-of-the-elastic-clause-of-the-constitution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=in-defense-of-the-elastic-clause-of-the-constitution</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/j-christian-adams/in-defense-of-the-elastic-clause-of-the-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J. Christian Adams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elastic clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=219809</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Haven't you heard of the constitutional power that entitles the president to do whatever he wants? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/American-Constitution.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-219829" alt="American-Constitution" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/American-Constitution-450x336.jpg" width="315" height="235" /></a>Reprinted from <a href="http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/02/26/in-defense-of-the-elastic-clause-of-the-constitution/?singlepage=true">PJ Media</a>.</strong></p>
<p>If college students listened to Mark Levin or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Revere-Brave-Pilgrims-Time-Travel/dp/1476755868">Rush Limbaugh</a>, they would receive a better American history education than they are getting from their professors. I <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Emory-College-Republicans/336452723042661">recently spoke at Emory University</a>, where one student defended all of President Obama’s unconstitutional actions by invoking the Elastic Clause of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Citing the Elastic Clause could indeed justify a wide range of administration actions, except for one problem – it doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>But you couldn’t tell that to the student at Emory University who came to my speech last week on Obama’s abuses of power. He persisted in defending the actions through the Elastic Clause, as if the be-all, end-all provision was common knowledge.</p>
<p>From the sound of it, the Elastic Clause must be common knowledge in faculty lounges.</p>
<p>The Elastic Clause, he persisted, gives the president the power to address a wide range of issues through executive prerogative. It allowed the government, he said, to adapt to new circumstances unlike the age when the Founders wrote the Constitution.</p>
<p>Of course the Founders did include an “elastic clause” of sorts, namely Article V, which gives the people and the states the power to amend the Constitution.</p>
<p>But he wasn’t speaking of something quite so stiff and formal. He wasn’t referring to something that required broad assent. He was referring the Elastic Clause that allows the president to swiftly respond to needs as they arise – sort of like Mussolini and Mugabe did.</p>
<p>He was serious. He really believed the Elastic Clause was real. But the constitutional literacy of a different student was even worse. With a straight face, she defended the exercise of executive power and the issuance of executive orders as constitutional because of the inaction of Congress.</p>
<p>“It’s part of the Constitution that if the Congress doesn’t act, then the president can issue executive orders to fix something,” was her argument.</p>
<p>Even more frightening, the person saying this is an officer of the campus Democrats. A little totalitarian in training.</p>
<p>Naturally, this was all quite an eye opener. I’m no fool when it comes to the institutional left and their corrosion of the system. But to have a student debate me over a verifiably fictional constitutional provision, to have a student presume I was the one making things up when I said the Elastic Clause didn’t exist – that blazed new territory.</p>
<p>All of this illustrates the dangerous rot occurring on campus, facilitated in large part by the faculty. All signs point to their success. Students are learning the lexicon of the institutional left and producing tragic-comedy like <a href="http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/02/25/black-ucla-law-students-complain-about-equality/">complaining about equalit</a>y at UCLA, and worse. My appearance at Emory was sponsored by the <a href="http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/">David Horowitz Freedom Center</a> and the College Republicans. Recognize that groups like these are fighting an uphill battle on campus. But without them, college campuses would be intellectually monolithic.</p>
<p>The talk at Emory wandered into the small discrete psychological components of tyranny as described brilliantly in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Gulag-Archipelago-1918-1956-Investigation/dp/0813332893"><em>Gulag Archipelago</em></a>. No doubt Mr. Elastic Clause and College Democrat Vice President Edict had never heard of the Nobel Prize winning description of where elastic ideas can lead.</p>
<p>Solzhenitsyn’s great book of the 20th century describes the <em>small ideas</em> of totalitarianism, and the camouflaged embryonic consent that individuals give to tyranny over time. Tyranny isn’t just about gruel with potato peelings day after day and bullets to the back of the head.</p>
<p>I presume Mr. Elastic Clause and Ms. College Democrat Officer will never read <em>Gulag</em>, but if they did, they would learn the story of Georgi Osorgin. Osorgin was imprisoned in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solovki_prison_camp">Solovetsky Islands</a> in the early 1920s. The date was important because American leftists (such as some Democrats of the 1960s) like to pin the mass murder system only on Stalin. But Solzhenitsyn documents that the gulags were a necessary part of Lenin’s vision of the International Brotherhood. Without terror, his system would not work.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Osorgin was to be shot, but he begged his jailers for a few more days because his wife was coming to visit him at the gulag. Osorgin’s wife visited him, then as her boat pulled away from Solovetsky Island, keeping his part of the bargain, he undressed to be shot. Niceties were part of the gulag in the early days because nobody really knew where the fledgling system was headed.</span></p>
<p>Solzhenitsyn:</p>
<blockquote><p>But still, someone did give them those three days. The three Osorgin days, like other cases, show how far the Solovetsky regime was from having donned the armor of a<em>system</em>. The impression is left that the air of Solovki strangely mingled extreme cruelty with an almost benign incomprehension of where all this was leading, which Solovetsky characteristics were becoming the embryo of the great Archipelago and which were destined to dry up and wither on the bud. After all, the Solovetsky Islands people did not yet, generally speaking, firmly believe that the ovens of the Arctic Auschwitz had been lit right there and that its crematory furnaces had been thrown open to all who were ever brought there. (But, after all, that is exactly how it was!)</p>
<p>People there were also misled by the fact that all their prison terms were exceedingly short: it was rare that anyone had a ten-year term, and even five was not found very often, and most of them were three, just three. And this whole cat-and-mouse trick of the law was still not understood: to pin down and let go, and pin down again and let go again. . . .</p>
<p>Here too, on the first islands of the Archipelago, was felt the instability of those checkered years of the middle twenties, when things were but poorly understood in the country as a whole. Was everything already prohibited? Or, on the contrary, were things only now beginning to be allowed? Age-old Russia still believed so strongly in rapturous phrases! And there were only a few prophets of gloom who had already figured things out and who knew when and how all this would be smashed into smithereens.</p></blockquote>
<p>I explained to the students that a <em>written</em> Constitution, free from the phony Elastic Clause and power for a president to issue edicts, is what keeps them free. It is what lets them have fun and have a good life. Structural constraints on the power of government allow people to experience joy, worship God, build dreams and fulfill potential. Our Constitution does not have an Elastic Clause for a very good reason. It was established to be <em>inelastic</em> absent the consent of three quarters of states. It was established to lay down fundamental ironclad <em>restraints</em> on the power of government, especially the executive branch.</p>
<p>Some are <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/why-the-fuss-obama-has-long-been-on-record-in-favor-of-redistribution/">trying to redefine freedom</a> away from this ideal and toward freedom from want.</p>
<p>That it is becoming fashionable to reject our particularly American version of freedom deserves an overpowering response.</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/j-christian-adams/in-defense-of-the-elastic-clause-of-the-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>55</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard&#8217;s Rebel Without a Clue</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-bawer/harvards-rebel-without-a-clue/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=harvards-rebel-without-a-clue</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-bawer/harvards-rebel-without-a-clue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 05:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Bawer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sandra Y.L. Korn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=219378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Meet Sandra Korn.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sandra_Korn.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-219390" alt="Sandra_Korn" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sandra_Korn.jpg" width="339" height="265" /></a>It reads like parody, but it&#8217;s not. Appearing the other day in the <i>Harvard Crimson, </i>the <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/?page=single">article</a> was headlined “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom: Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.” Its author, a Harvard undergraduate named Sandra Y.L. Korn, argued that the concept of academic freedom should be replaced by one of academic justice. “When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression,” she proposed, “it should ensure that this research does not continue.” To a large extent, of course, the American academy is already under the thumb of the left-wing Thought Police; Ms. Korn only wants to complete the job. She&#8217;d like to see an academy in which, she explains, somebody like Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield – a conservative who would never be hired nowadays, but whose job is secure thanks to tenure – would be given the boot, the better to purify the sweet air of Harvard Yard.</p>
<p>Who is Sandra Y.L. Korn? The contributor&#8217;s note identifies her as a member of the class of 2014, a <i>Crimson </i>editorial writer and columnist, and “a joint history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality concentrator in Eliot House.” “Concentrator” is apparently Harvardese for “major.” Ms. Korn&#8217;s college education consists, then, of courses in Women&#8217;s Studies and in “History of Science,” which, according to Harvard&#8217;s website, “offers students the possibility of studying the history and social relations of science” but “does not require students to take science courses.” (Which, of course, is ridiculous: how can you begin to understand what science is without actually studying a science?) Ms. Korn, I also discovered, is working on a thesis about “how biologists have tried over and over again to explain gender difference by invoking &#8216;science.&#8217;” In other words, she&#8217;s learned about science – without really learning any science – in order to discredit “science,” a word she puts in scare quotes. (Her project is, note well, entirely consistent with Women&#8217;s Studies dogma, which teaches that science is “masculinist.”)</p>
<p>Ms. Korn, I further discovered, is not only a prolific columnist – writing regularly for both the <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/writer/1206810/SANDRA%20_Y.L.%20_KORN/# ">Crimson</a> and the <a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/author/sandra-korn/">Harvard Political Review</a> – but an active member of Occupy Harvard, the Progressive Jewish Allliance, the Student Labor Action Movement, and BAGELS, “Harvard&#8217;s group for bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgendered Jews.” In her columns, she&#8217;s paid <a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/features/memoirs-project/the-politics-of-power-this-side-of-glory-and-the-black-panther-party/">tribute</a> to the Black Panthers, <a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/occupation-with-no-end/">celebrated</a> the Occupy movement, and <a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/world/kim-jong-ils-death/">chided</a> those who cheered Kim Jong-Il&#8217;s death. She&#8217;s <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/6/rotc-policy-students-harvard/">opposed</a> allowing ROTC back onto the Harvard campus, one reason being that “[i]nternational students&#8230;from countries not allied with the United States” might object to their presence. She&#8217;s <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2013/4/9/ed-ex-not-democratic/">criticized</a> Harvard&#8217;s plans to distribute lecture courses on the Internet as the latest development in “a long history of imperialism in which U.S. elites have told an increasingly globalized world that what they thought was best.” She&#8217;s <a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/world/when-people-are-occupied-2/">written</a> that “[w]hile violent resistance through Hamas is not right,” it&#8217;s “not incomprehensible,” given that “non-violent resistance cannot make the international community pay attention to the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza.” And she&#8217;s <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/2/1/antisemitism-false-accusations/">dismissed</a> as “Islamophobia” any statement of the objective fact that anti-Semitism is a core element of contemporary Palestinian identity.</p>
<p>Speaking of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, summer before last Ms. Korn went on a free ten-day trip to Israel courtesy of Taglit-Birthright Israel, then wrote a column <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/7/6/israel-trip-sylk/">savaging</a> the “right-wing rhetoric” she was fed – by which she meant that, for example, her tour guides displayed an unapologetic pride in Israel and were honest about the systematic inculcation of anti-Semitism in Palestinian schools. While in Israel, she wrote an <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/7/16/harvard-postcard-jaffa/%20">article</a> lamenting that the country – which some of her family members admired half a century or so ago as “a workers’ nation, a socialist utopia” – has now “adopted capitalism with fervor,” an action which she plainly deplores.  She is, indeed, no fan of capitalism. More than once, she&#8217;s <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/4/harvard-students-investment-graduates/">ranted</a> about the fact that many Harvard graduates get jobs in finance. In one <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/165724/harvard-wall-street-recruiting-ivies# ">column</a> (reprinted by <i>The Nation, </i>where she was an intern) she savaged Harvard’s Office of Career Services for steering students toward Wall Street, and wondered aloud whether they do so in order “to guarantee wealthy alumni donors.” She concluded her piece by underscoring the need to “destroy&#8230;the well-paved road between the Ivy League schools and Wall Street.” When she went to England last summer to do “research” at Trinity Colllege, Cambridge, she found stuff to <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/series/summer-postcards-2013/article/2013/8/14/Korn-postcard-the-high-table/">complain</a> about there, too: “Why do the fellows here dine in the same hall as undergraduates but on a raised platform apart from them?”</p>
<p>In the wake of the 2011 Mumbai bombings, Ms. Korn was outraged – not at the terrorists, but at <a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/swamys-freedom-of-speech/">Subramanian Swamy</a>, an Indian politician and Harvard economics lecturer who responded to the atrocities with an article about how “Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus.” Ms. Korn and some of her confederates jumped into action, agitating for Harvard to – as she put it – “discontinue its association with an offensive figure.” The action succeeded; Swamy was banished. A month later, Ms. Korn and a fellow Women&#8217;s Studies major <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/16/911-global-afghanistan-harvard/%20">slammed</a> President Obama&#8217;s speech on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 as too America-centric. “As an international student from a Muslim country and an American student from a suburb of New York,” they wrote, “we believe that discussions and events commemorating 9/11&#8230;must place the attacks within a global context.” Why remember the 3,000 people killed in the Twin Towers, they asked, and not “the nearly 250,000 deaths which followed”? And why no tribute to the Muslim victims of “bias crimes” in the U.S. since 9/11?  “[B]y urging all Americans to take emotional ownership over the event,” Korn and her co-author argued, “we cast a U.S.-centric and nationalist stance on 9/11 that dehumanizes and delegitimizes the perceived &#8216;other&#8217;—and allows us to emotionally detach from wars taking place abroad.”</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, Ms. Korn was also <a href="http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/on-the-celebration-of-death/">displeased</a> by the patriotic displays after bin Laden&#8217;s death. That night, “hundreds of excited Harvard students gathered outside my window in Matthews. Chanting &#8216;U-S-A! U-S-A!&#8217; and singing &#8216;God Bless America&#8217; and &#8216;Ten Thousand Men of Harvard,&#8217; these joyous, debatably sober, vuvuzela-carrying Harvard students celebrated the death of America’s most-hated enemy: Osama bin Laden.” Ms. Korn said that while she “dislike[s] attacks on American soil just as much as the next person,” she “hesitate[s] to label humans as &#8216;evil.&#8217;” Beside, celebrations of bin Laden&#8217;s death only “reaffirm negative prejudices about Americans held by those involved with terrorist groups,” “confirm that Americans are unfeeling and inconsiderate,” and do “nothing to earn America the respect of the Afghani people.”</p>
<p>Who, then, is this fierce critic of American empire, this enemy of capitalism, this scourge of Wall Street? Well, as it turns out, she&#8217;s <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sandra-korn/19/561/">from</a> the affluent suburb of Basking Ridge, New Jersey, where she grew up in a house at 61 Darren Drive that was <a href="http://www.bergendispatch.com/property/somerset/property.aspx?id=1802%7C11702%7C10">purchased</a> in 1998 for $800,000. (If you check it out on Google Maps, it looks like the very image of the American dream: a peaceful paradise of large, pretty houses separated from the quiet street by broad, manicured lawns dotted with shade trees.) Her parents are Elizabeth A. Korn, a pediatric endocrinologist, and William D. Korn, whose own Harvard degrees are in economics and business administration and whose <a href="http://www.kornintellect.com/experience.html%20">website</a> describes him – the father of this proud 99-percenter – as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>Bill Korn is a veteran technology executive with more than 30 years of experience managing fast growth businesses. As Chief Financial Officer for seven companies he has raised over $250 million of capital, including debt and equity financing. Bill has completed seven acquisitions, including negotiating terms, arranging financing, performing due diligence and integrating teams. He has successfully created many successful partnerships and joint ventures.</p></blockquote>
<p>The bio goes on for several more paragraphs, providing details of his years at IBM and other corporations and his involvement in the National Association of Corporate Directors and the New Jersey Economic Growth Council.</p>
<p>Sandra Korn is, then, the child of two parents who, taken together – to judge by their CVs – personify pretty much everything she&#8217;s rebelling against. She&#8217;s a product of precisely the kind of upper-class American suburban life for which she has professed an ardent class contempt. And she&#8217;s about to collect an immensely valuable diploma after utterly squandering a magnificent, world-class opportunity to actually learn something. Instead of grasping this opportunity, she&#8217;s spent the last four years marinating in her own ideology by writing articles, participating in activism, and taking “courses” that are about nothing more than Being Ideologues Together. There&#8217;s no sign that she&#8217;s been educated at all, in any sense of the term – no sign that she&#8217;s learned anything of significance about, say, history or economics, no sign that she&#8217;s developed any understanding of the way the world works, no sign that she grasps the concept of challenging one&#8217;s own assumptions by taking in unfamiliar facts and grappling with ideas different from one&#8217;s own. She mentions her professors in her columns only to upbraid them. (Several of her profs, for example, have urged her to work on not saying “you know” and “like” in every sentence – which she <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2013/4/23/harvard-lean-in/">rejects</a> as an effort to make her speech patterns more masculinist.) She gives every indication, in fact, of having arrived at Harvard believing that she already knew everything she needed to know and of having viewed her presence on campus as a chance not to obtain a first-rate education but to roil the waters in a very big pond.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t mean to come down like a ton of bricks on one lone college kid. I focus on Ms. Korn because she&#8217;s one of the most prominent voices at what is by far America&#8217;s most prominent university, and because she&#8217;s a highly representative figure whose views are standard issue for a great many privileged young Americans today. And at the very heart of what makes her representative is the fact that she hasn&#8217;t got an original thought in her head – and doesn&#8217;t even realize it. She&#8217;s swallowed an ideology whole and learned to spit it back. Her unoriginality, her predictability, are matched only by her colossal self-assurance; she&#8217;s clearly never entertained any serious doubt that she belongs to her generation&#8217;s intellectual <i>crème de la crème. </i>For all her rage against America&#8217;s cruel classism, she never questions, in any of her many articles, the elite status she herself enjoys, perhaps only because her father is a well-to-do Harvard alum.</p>
<p>To the extent that this young woman represents the next generation of the American elite, America is doomed – period. The one sign of hope that stands out in her articles is the anecdote about hundreds of students congregating under her dorm window to sing “God Bless America.” Were there really hundreds? If so, hurrah. I wouldn&#8217;t have dared hope there were more than a handful of Harvard students who had it in them to put on such a display; given the way things work at such universities nowadays, I would&#8217;ve imagined that the admissions office did a far more effective job of screening out applicants capable of such behavior. But even though Harvard students like this do apparently exist, perhaps even in the hundreds, the fact remains that it&#8217;s the Sandra Korns – with their contempt for freedom, their love of totalitarian-style “social justice,” and their determination to purge the ideologically impure – who define such institutions in our time, and who, simply because the word “Harvard” or “Yale” or “Princeton” is printed on their diplomas, are almost certainly destined for highly influential careers in America&#8217;s corridors of power. Yes, the singers of “God Bless America” may go on to Wall Street and make millions, but the Sandra Korns will go on to places like the <i>New York Times </i>and proceed to bend the culture to their will. And if that&#8217;s not terribly depressing news, what is?</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/bruce-bawer/harvards-rebel-without-a-clue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>382</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1505/1700 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:54:00 by W3 Total Cache -->