<?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; New book</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/new-book/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>The Democrats’ Great Betrayal</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-democrats-great-betrayal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-democrats-great-betrayal</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-democrats-great-betrayal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Great Betrayal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An unprecedented treachery for which the world is paying a dear price.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gb.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244968" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gb-238x350.jpg" alt="gb" width="199" height="293" /></a><strong>[To order<em> &#8220;The Black Book of the American Left, Volume III: The Great Betrayal,&#8221;</em> <a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenterstore.org/collections/books/products/the-black-book-of-the-american-left-volume-iii-the-great-betrayal">click here</a>. We encourage our readers to visit <a href="http://www.blackbookoftheamericanleft.com/">BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com</a> – which features David Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-2 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.]</strong></p>
<p>Yesterday Regnery published <em>The Great Betrayal</em>, a book I have written to mark a watershed moment not only in the War on Terror, which is really a war against the Islamic Jihad, but a watershed moment in American history. The events and controversies chronicled in <em>The Great Betrayal</em> describe an unprecedented defection by a major political party from an American war in progress, and a five- year effort by that party to sabotage the war and undermine America’s troops in the field.</p>
<p>The Democrats’ campaign against the war in Iraq was very different from their opposition to the war in Vietnam, which came after American troops had been in the field for more than a decade and both parties had agreed on a withdrawal. In contrast, the watershed moment in Iraq came in June 2003, when the war was little more than three months old and American troops were facing a ferocious resistance from terrorist forces. In that month the Democratic Party ran a national TV ad accusing Bush of lying about Saddam’s determination to build weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>The focus of the Democrats’ attack was sixteen words in Bush’s State of the Union Address in which he referred to a British report that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger. The statement was true, but a massive campaign in the leftwing media along with the Democrats’ imputation that Bush had lied about the rationale for the war began a five-year effort to slander America’s commander-in-chief and condemn the war in Iraq as illegal, immoral and unnecessary. The consequences of these attacks can be seen in the emergence of ISIS in the vacuum created by the Democrat-led withdrawal from the region, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the creation of 18 million refugees in six-year tenure of the “anti-war” president, Barack Obama.</p>
<p>Why did the Democrats turn against a war they had authorized and why did they accuse Bush of deceiving the American people (“Bush lied, people died”)? Not because of anything that had taken place on the battlefield in Iraq. The Democrats turned against the war because an anti-war activist named Howard Dean was set to win the Democratic presidential primary &#8211; which happened to coincide with the invasion &#8211; by a wide margin. It was Dean’s surge in the polls that caused John Kerry and John Edwards who eventually became the Democratic standard bearers to do an about face, repudiate their previous support of the war, and turn on the president as the chief culprit in the conflict rather than the sadistic tyrant Saddam Hussein. The Democrats even lied about the rationale for the war which was not the existence of weapons of mass destruction but Saddam’s violation of the Gulf War truce and 17 UN Resolutions designed to<em> prevent</em> him from building weapons of mass destruction.</p>
<p>Why did the Democrats claim – falsely &#8211; that Bush lied about the reasons for the war? Because the Democrats could not admit that they were turning against a war they themselves had authorized for partisan political gain, undoubtedly the most shameful act by a major political party in the nation’s history.</p>
<p>The Democrats went on to conduct a five-year scorched earth campaign against America’s war in Iraq, which was in effect the central front of the war on terror, as the creation of an Islamic terrorist state has since shown. Democrats did not merely oppose the war but slandered the president as a liar and war criminal, defended the leaks of national security programs (which led to their destruction), converted a minor incident in the Abu Ghraib prison into an international scandal which was then used to defame their country and demoralize its troops, and actively sought to defund the war effort in Congress and force an American defeat. They eventually succeeded in this effort by nominating a leftwing anti-war activist who upon reaching the White House proceeded to make America’s defeat in Iraq a <em>fait accompli</em>, thus creating the vacuum that ISIS has filled.</p>
<p>Did Bush lie about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction as the Democrats claimed? The discovery by ISIS of 2200 rockets filled with Sarin that Saddam had buried explodes this myth, which has been wielded for over a decade by America’s enemies and detractors to undermine the war on terror. Could Bush have lied about the intelligence on Iraq? Hardly. Democrats like John Kerry sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of information that Bush did.</p>
<p>It was Kerry and his running mate Edwards who lied, and the entire Democratic Party leadership along with them. And it’s in Syria and the Levant, Afghanistan and Iraq that our country is now paying the price for this treachery and deceit. And soon, if our military leaders have assessed the threat correctly, we will be paying for their treachery here at home.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-horowitz/the-democrats-great-betrayal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Take No Prisoners</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/andrew-c-mccarthy/take-no-prisoners-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=take-no-prisoners-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/andrew-c-mccarthy/take-no-prisoners-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew C. McCarthy]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battle Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz's new book unveils the battle plan for defeating the Left.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/bb.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239807" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/bb.jpg" alt="bb" width="194" height="298" /></a><strong>To purchase David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, <em>Take No Prisoners</em>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1621572560/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1621572560&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=pjmedia-20&amp;linkId=ZLFKIO3OORHJOL6H">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>The Republican presidential ticket was animated, with both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan finally ripping President Obama’s foreign policy to shreds. Pity that it happened nearly two years after they were soundly beaten in the 2012 election.</p>
<p>The too-little-way-too-late indictment occurred during a Fox News <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/3743003045001/exclusive-mitt-romney-and-paul-ryan-on-isis-threat/#sp=show-clips">interview</a> days after Islamic State jihadists decapitated an American journalist. It was a stark departure from the campaign, when so scathing a critique might have made a difference. Take, for example, the third debate between the candidates, a session on foreign affairs. All of America, it seemed, waited for Romney to unload on Obama’s shameful malfeasance before, during and after the then-recent Benghazi massacre. Alas, the Republican standard-bearer decided the winning debate strategy was to permit no daylight between Obama’s approach and his own, the better to focus the election on the economy. Quickly seeing that Romney had no intention of attacking, Obama reverted to the default Democrat strategy of ridiculing his rival as an out-of-touch rich guy who hadn’t heard the Cold War was over and wanted to hunker down in Iraq for a thousand years. Romney, to the contrary, seemed by debate’s end to be on the verge of endorsing Obama, whose foreign policy outpaces even Jimmy Carter’s in sheer destructiveness.</p>
<p>Romney, Ryan and their GOP leadership colleagues might not be the nice guys who finished last if they’d taken a few lessons from David Horowitz in the art of political warfare. Yes, <em>warfare</em>: The exercise in aggression in which the object is to defeat your adversary, not demonstrate how much you admire and have in common with him.</p>
<p>Political warfare is the subject of Mr. Horowitz’s latest book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating-ebook/dp/B00INC64FW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1409238496&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=david+horowitz"><em>Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left</em></a>. It is a particularly fitting topic for the bestselling author – the publisher of <em>FrontPage</em> and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is, after all, an unparalleled expert in the Left’s tireless and transformative political activism having learned it, lived it, escaped it, and dedicated his career to defeating it.</p>
<p>But <em>warfare?</em> Must it really be so cut-throat? Well, perhaps not … but let’s not kid ourselves. The old saw that “politics ain’t beanbag” predates the modern Left. Today’s timid consultant-class cautions about avoiding political “divisiveness” – the only schooling to which Republicans seem attuned – is nonsensical. <em>Politics is innately divisive.</em> People in a democratic society have vastly different policy preferences, and politics is the process by which we choose. One doesn’t get to govern, to apply policy preferences, without first prevailing in the sharp-elbowed electoral arena. As Horowitz demonstrates, moreover, good policy can be bad politics – the skill sets are different, and while voters may say they want policy that works, they elect candidates who <em>care</em>, or at least give the appearance of caring, even if such treacle translates into ruinous policy.</p>
<p>The inevitable divisiveness of politics has become more akin to warfare because, Horowitz explains, the modern Left is out not merely to defeat but to annihilate its opposition. Today’s Democrats have transformed the proudly pro-American party of Cold Warrior John F. Kennedy into the post-American party of the radical, antiwar, anti-captitalist and anti-Constitutional Left. It is not so much a political party as a missionary movement suffuse with apocalyptic zeal. It does not have opponents; it has <em>enemies</em>. Its grandiose aim is to elevate government as the “social savior,” transcending human history and experience, transmogrifying the United States into a remorselessly egalitarian society based on forced equality of results, not vibrant equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>For the Left, those who stand athwart their utopia rate not reasoned opposition but seething contempt. Democrats blithely portray Republicans in bracing terms: racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, greedy villains – defenders of the parasitic “top one percent” who luxuriate on the backs of decent working people.</p>
<p>Republicans are ill-equipped to deal with the onslaught because its driving convictions lie outside their worldview. Guided by history and experience, they are all too conscious of human failing, very much including their own. They are skeptical of grand schemes to perfect our nature, particularly those orchestrated through the notoriously imperfect vehicle of government. And their basic assumptions about caring – steeped in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility – do not sound-bite nearly as well as extravagant promises to provide for your needs by spending other people’s money.</p>
<p>We are left, then, with a serious passion gap. Republicans depict Democrats as wrong; Democrats decry Republicans as evil. Republicans deconstruct Democratic policy as well-meaning but misguided or “liberal”; Democrats counter that their mean-spirited opponents are the oppressors of women, children, minorities, the poor, and the environment.</p>
<p>In warfare, Horowitz observes, you cannot win “when the other side is using bazookas and your side is wielding fly swatters.” If they are to be viable competitors, Republicans must regard politics as warfare because that is what the opposition is doing. Horowitz explains that for the Left, “the issue is never the issue”; each controversy that arises, each crisis that is manufactured, is fit into an overarching narrative, like the “war on women,” based on its serviceability to “the socialist future and the revolution” by which it is being ushered in.</p>
<p>The narrative is designed not so much to win the day as to drive this transformative agenda. A good-and-evil narrative needs a scoundrel – recall the most infamous of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” To gin up the hostility necessary for such a campaign, an abstraction will not do. Best to have a flesh-and-blood enemy that can more realistically be cast as a threat to society. That is the role of the Republicans, one they often seem only too willing to play.</p>
<p>Horowitz contends that Republicans must fight fire with fire. Importantly, he is not suggesting that the GOP should slander its opposition with lies. That, in fact, is the power of his argument. Horowitz wants Republicans to throw at the Left the abysmal failures of a half-century’s social welfare policies, and to do it with righteous passion, not apology.</p>
<p>Horowitz elaborates that this is crucial because the “racial Teflon is the reason Republicans lose elections.” Even though it foolishly narrowed the campaign to the economy – to the exclusion of national security, a defining issue in nearly every presidential election won by Republicans since 1952 – the Romney campaign still had a very strong case in light of Obama’s non-recovery, 23 million jobless, and millions more underemployed. Yet much of the voting public never heard the case: Democrats spent $200 million on a television ad campaign that smeared the candidate as a rich, heartless, untrustworthy job-destroyer who was cruel to his dog.</p>
<p>The consultant-driven campaign did not respond in kind despite the fact that a true response was ready to hand. As Horowitz puts it:</p>
<blockquote><p>Obama is undoubtedly the most obvious and determined liar in presidential history. He is an absentee executive, notably missing in crisis after crisis or busy complaining he was uninformed about matters of crucial concern. While Egypt and Syria burned, he golfed and attended campaign fund-raising events. His endless dithering, misguided interventions, and steadfast support of the Muslim Brotherhood helped to set the Middle East aflame. Meanwhile, he and his wife carry on like royalty, consuming tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on their family vacations and dog, while tens of millions of Americans suffer historic levels of deprivation because of his policies.</p></blockquote>
<p>Cutting to the chase, Horowitz observes that Republicans were petrified to paint this portrait of Obama because he is black – or, more accurately, half-black and staunchly leftist. In our hyper race-conscious political environment, this qualifies him as a man “of color,” insulated from the “standard to which others are held.” To break through this paralyzing political correctness, Republicans must not be afraid to show that the poor and minority groups are the victims – the human face – of Democratic programs that cheat them out of education, employment opportunity, quality healthcare, security, and stable families.</p>
<p>Horowitz upbraids Republicans for tepidly describing these programs “wasteful,” or sugar-coating them in a wrong-headed and self-defeating concession of the Democrats’ noble intentions. Instead, they are “morally repulsive, life-destroying programs that are inhumane and unjust,” and must be attacked as such. And attacked with real-life images of blight, such as once great American cities like Detroit – a global industrial jewel in living memory, but half of whose population (i.e., over a million people) has now abandoned the wreckage wrought by generations of exclusively Democratic rule.</p>
<p>Modern politics, the author counsels, is about inspiring fear as well as hope. And it is an art of war in which the aggressor usually prevails. Thus, if the opposition’s objectives will imperil the nation, it is essential to convince the public that they are to be feared. Hope can work, as it did for the 2008 Obama campaign, “but fear,” Horowitz writes, “is a stronger and more compelling emotion.”</p>
<p>As we are seeing day after day, Obama and his allies are to be feared. Will that be enough for the Beltway GOP and the grassroots conservatives of the Tea Party to concentrate on what unites rather than divides them? As the author admonishes, it better be. An America that is free, secure, and a positive, decisive leader on the world stage – the America that David Horowitz fights for – hangs in the balance.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/andrew-c-mccarthy/take-no-prisoners-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Horowitz Joins Hannity to Discuss Obama&#8217;s Anti-American Agenda</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battle Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defeating the Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Take No Prisoners]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=237367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Freedom Center president explains how the Radical-in-Chief is taking us down as a nation -- and how conservatives can fight back. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/plwe1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-237388" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/plwe1-450x300.jpg" alt="Barack Obama" width="308" height="205" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz&#8217;s new book, &#8220;</strong><span id="productTitle" class="a-size-large"><strong><em>Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left</em>,&#8221; <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">click here</a>.</strong><br />
</span></p>
<p><em>Below is the transcript for David Horowitz&#8217;s appearance on Monday, July 28<sup>th</sup>, on <a href="http://www.hannity.com/main.html">The Hannity Radio Show</a> to discuss his just released new book,  <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Take-No-Prisoners-Battle-Defeating/dp/1621572560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1406631034&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=take+no+prisoners">Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left</a>.</em></p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> David, it&#8217;s good to have you back on the program.  How are you?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Thanks, Sean.  Let me just say that you have the best media voice of anyone on this issue of the Middle East, and I thank you for it.</p>
<p>Obama is an anti-American.  He supports the terrorists, he&#8217;s supporting Hamas in this battle.  He supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of al-Qaeda and all the terrorist groups in the Middle East.  He is leading a retreat of America from the world.  He is taking us down as a nation.  He&#8217;s an anti-American radical with Communist views.  And we need to have more people saying this, telling it like it is.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Let me just say &#8212; whenever somebody &#8212; I have so many people that tape this program on a regular basis &#8212; they&#8217;re going to say &#8212; Hannity allows Horowitz to say the President hates America.  Let me &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> He does hate America!</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Let me ask you this question.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Yes?</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Why would this President give Mohamed Morsi 1.5 billion &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Exactly.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Now, Mohamed Morsi referred to the Israelis, Jews, as descendents of apes and pigs.  We gave him tanks &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> These are followers of the jihad, they&#8217;re supporters of the jihad.  They want to kill every infidel and make everybody subservient to their version of Allah.  That&#8217;s basically what it&#8217;s about.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Well, look at what&#8217;s going on in Mosul.  We now have a situation where if you&#8217;re a Christian and you live in Mosul, and the new radical ISIS &#8212; because we never supported Iraq with intelligence and training; we just pulled out, because politically that was expedient for Obama.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Obama came to office determined to lose the Iraq war, which he has done.  And he has lost the war in Afghanistan, which he has done.  And he has lost the Middle East.  And Republicans are not shouting this from the rooftops.  Obama’s actions are all very deliberate.  He is a lifelong anti-American radical.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve been terrific on Bill Ayers.  Bill Ayers&#8217;s views are Obama&#8217;s views.  Bill Ayers is critical of Obama from the left, but that&#8217;s because he&#8217;s not in power.  But if Bill Ayers was in power with Obama, he&#8217;d be doing exactly what Obama is doing.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Here&#8217;s what the United States of America is doing right now that I don&#8217;t think most Americans know.  We are giving the Hamas Palestinian coalition government &#8212; they just give him 47 million more dollars.  We gave them, what, 400 million recently.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> This guy sympathizes with America&#8217;s enemies.  There&#8217;s no other way to explain it.  But I need to talk about my &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> I&#8217;m going to talk about your book.  Look, I don&#8217;t [see] it the way you do.  I don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s in his heart.  I do know that he is exactly who I said he would be, and that is his ACORN, Alinsky, friendships and associations with Father Pfleger and Reverend Wright, and Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.  He is a rigid, radical ideologue.  I &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> That&#8217;s all correct, Sean.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Hang on, hang on.  And he has governed with no capacity to be pragmatic or change like Bill Clinton &#8212; the era of big government is over.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> No, because he&#8217;s an ideologue.  I know what&#8217;s in his heart.  Because he comes out of this exact identical Left that I spent, you know, my life in until I was 35.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Why do you say &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> The same people, the same ideas, the same ill will towards this country.  And he never came out of it.  So that&#8217;s how I know.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> So in other words, you grew up with Communist parents.  Your parents were Communists.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Right.  And his mentor was a Communist.  He came &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Frank Marshall Davis.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> &#8212; out of a Communist background.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Well.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> And he never repudiated it.  And because he never repudiated it, I know he still believes it. He didn&#8217;t repudiate it because he identifies with it.  You know, Valerie Jarrett is the same, David Axelrod &#8212; they&#8217;re all &#8212; they all come out of the anti-American communist left.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> What is it that you think he thinks?  Because I know you&#8217;re going to criticized for your words, &#8220;anti-American radical.&#8221;  So I want to give you some &#8212; I want to give you a chance to clarify.  Are you saying that his radical, rigid ideology that he believes that America&#8217;s an imperialist country, that &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Absolutely.  And he wants to weaken America. Every time America is weakened, the oppressed of the world are, in his eyes, uplifted.  That is his view.  He is a radical of the Jeremiah Wright, Billy Ayers, Alinsky school.  And there&#8217;s just no question about it.  You know, Stanley Kurtz has written a whole book documenting this.  But it should be evident to everyone now.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Now, let me ask you about this.  We&#8217;re heading into an important election.  And I&#8217;ve talked about, at length on this program, I&#8217;m kind of inspired by what conservative governors are doing.  I was just talking to Paul Ryan about it.  And in other words, they&#8217;re taking deficits, turning them into surpluses.  High unemployment &#8212; they&#8217;re creating jobs in their state.  You know, I&#8217;m talking about Texas, Rick Perry; Florida, Rick Scott &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Yep.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> &#8212; Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Scott Walker.  I mean, you know, Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley &#8212; those people are doing some good work.</p>
<p>I have been frustrated with Republicans in Congress, because they don&#8217;t seem &#8212; they seem too timid, too unwilling to fight Obama, too unwilling to use their constitutional authority on spending.  And they don&#8217;t have an inspiring vision that makes me say, you know, I want to vote for you, because that sounds like a good idea.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> That&#8217;s exactly right.  My book is a book on how to fight.</p>
<p>Look, Chris Lehane, who&#8217;s a Democratic strategist, said &#8212; everybody has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth.  The Democrats have a massive punch, which they use every election against Republicans, calling them racists, sexists, women-haters, minority-haters, haters of the poor.  When they do that, they can take a perfectly decent human being like Mitt Romney and so tar and feather him that his message never gets across.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s the Republican punch in the mouth, the response to this?  There is none!  They have absolutely no answer. Republicans are all focused on policies, on budgets, on administrative things.  The answer is very obvious.  You take the victims of the Democrats, and you throw them in their faces.  It&#8217;s Democrats who are racist.  They control all the major inner cities in America.  Every policy that affects the inner city is a Democratic monopoly.  They have millions, millions of poor black and Hispanic children in schools that don&#8217;t teach them.  And they have them trapped there and won&#8217;t let them go to private schools.  They won&#8217;t give them choice, freedom.</p>
<p>This is a horrendous social atrocity.  For decades, this has been going on.  The Democrats have controlled the inner cities of America for 50 to 100 years.  The Republican Convention should&#8217;ve been held in Detroit, which is the symbol of what Democrats do when they have the power.</p>
<p>In 1961, Detroit was the richest city in America.  Now, it&#8217;s the poorest large city in America.  Two thirds of its population has fled.  Why?  Because the Democrats have racist, anti-white policies; they drove the white middle class out.  They&#8217;re anti-business; they drove business out.  They bankrupt &#8212; they turned Detroit from a first-world city into a third-world city in one generation.  If the Republicans held their convention in Detroit, they&#8217;d have a symbol to shove in the Democrats&#8217; faces and shut them up about Republican wars on women and minorities.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> You know, I&#8217;ve known you a long time.  A real long time.  You&#8217;re really, really worked up about how bad things are.  And I got to be honest &#8212; I share your emotion here.  Because I think we&#8217;re losing our country.  You say that, and people say &#8212; you know, you listen &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> We are losing our country, rapidly.  Obamacare &#8212; what is Obamacare about?  Why don&#8217;t Republicans mention this?  It’s a fundamental attack on individual freedom. Republicans need to make their argument a moral argument, the way the Democrats do.  The Democrats portray Republicans as evil.  Until Republicans effectively portray Democrats as evil, they will be outgunned in any political contest.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> So what else do you think they should do?</p>
<p>David Horowitz: Obamacare is a major transformation of the country.  The government can now tell you that you have to buy their health insurance.  You have four choices.  Someday, it may be one choice, if they get their single payer system. Then they also tell you, if you&#8217;ve worked hard and played by the rules, we&#8217;re going to stick our hands in your pockets and take money out of it to subsidize people who haven&#8217;t worked hard, who haven&#8217;t played by the rules.</p>
<p>This is a fundamental transformation of America, Obamacare.  And I just don&#8217;t see Republicans fighting the moral issue.  The conservative movement is built on the idea of freedom, individual freedom.  And you don&#8217;t hear that rhetoric.  And you need to hear it in these election battles.</p>
<p>My book, &#8220;Take No Prisoners&#8221; &#8212; goes over all of this, chapter and verse &#8212; how to do it.  And it&#8217;s just out today, and I thank you for &#8211;</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Boy, you&#8217;re out of breath.  Are you okay?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> I am out of breath. One of the reasons I&#8217;m so angry is I&#8217;m 75 &#8212; you know, I&#8217;ve been saying this for 20 years; Republicans don&#8217;t listen.  I&#8217;ve watched the country slipping away.  You know, I don&#8217;t know what to say.  I would never have believed it could happen so rapidly as it&#8217;s happening now.</p>
<p><strong>Sean Hannity:</strong> Yeah.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> But we are now no longer a power in the world.  And that means that the bad guys are having a field day.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/david-horowitz-joins-hannity-to-discuss-obamas-anti-american-agenda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>75</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The People Vs. Barack Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-people-vs-barack-obama/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-people-vs-barack-obama</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-people-vs-barack-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shapiro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The People Vs. Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235214</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro unveils the criminal case against the Obama administration.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/TC.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-235218" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/TC-231x350.jpg" alt="TC" width="231" height="350" /></a><strong>[Ben Shapiro will be speaking at the Freedom Center&#8217;s Wednesday Morning Club on  Tuesday, July 8, 2014. For more info, <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wmc-ben-shapiro-tickets-11807485507">click here</a></strong>. <strong>To order Ben&#8217;s new book, &#8220;<em>The People Vs. Barack Obama</em>,&#8221; <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-People-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138">click here</a>.]</strong></p>
<p>As the first African-American Solicitor General, Thurgood Marshall told a black fraternity, “Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some five decades later, lawlessness and anarchy have descended on America and on Washington D.C. under the banner of color and frustration. This is no laissez-faire lawlessness, but anarchy toward accountability. Like the rock throwers and Molotov cocktail throwers that Marshall was denouncing, Obama and his people have made their own law out of force while rejecting the rule of law.</p>
<p>Through force they have become the law while disregarding the law. There is a term for that sort of behavior and is it not anarchy. It is crime.</p>
<p>This is the state of affairs that Ben Shapiro describes as “a quasi criminal syndicate” and in his book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-People-Barack-Obama-Administration/dp/1476765138"><em>The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration</em></a>, he discusses how to fight back against it.</p>
<p>“Consolidated government means consolidated power, consolidated power means consolidated corruption,” Shapiro writes. The old system of checks and balances has been undone. Obama Inc. is an integrated political machine whose appointees serve a common ideological goal and a common purpose. And they control the clockwork machinery of government from the top to the bottom.</p>
<p>There can be no plausible expectation that Attorney General Eric Holder will investigate Obama. Not when Holder is corrupt. As corrupt confederates in crime, Obama protects Holder and Holder protects Obama. Likewise, Obama Inc. is composed of such self-serving mutual pacts forming a system of power that makes up its own laws while refusing to be accountable to the law.</p>
<p>Shapiro’s statement that this amounts to a criminal syndicate is not just rhetoric, it is at the very heart of the legal argument that he makes in <em>The People Vs. Barack Obama</em>.</p>
<p>“The Obama administration has become a full-fledged criminal enterprise,” he writes. “Riddled up and down with executive branch appointees engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.”</p>
<p>Listing many of the scandals and the violations of the law involved from the Justice Department to the State Department, from the EPA to the NSA, Shapiro argues that they amount to a criminal conspiracy fit for a criminal complaint and that they can be and should be prosecuted under RICO statutes.</p>
<p>“The crime of conspiracy has typically been defined at the state level as the agreement of two or more people to commit a crime. There is little question that some of the crimes of the Obama administration have been coordinated at the highest level, as the evidence will show,” Shapiro argues.</p>
<p>A pattern of criminal conduct can be established for Obama that would make it difficult for him to argue plausible deniability, as he has in virtually every scandal, pretending to be outraged by the scandal he only learned about this morning from the media before shifting gears and calling it a phony scandal.</p>
<p>“RICO provides that any person who is part of an organization that commits any two on a list of crimes can be prosecuted for racketeering,” Shapiro writes. This list becomes the framework around which <em>The People Vs. Barack Obama</em> is built.</p>
<p>Shapiro is of course well aware that Holder is no more likely to hit Obama or his minions with RICO violations than he is to resign in order to pursue his dream of becoming an Olympic skier, but he points out that RICO suits can be pursued as civil suits turning ordinary people into “citizen attorney generals.”</p>
<p>There are two fronts of RICO proposals in<em> The People Vs. Barack Obama</em>. Aside from individual suits, Shapiro proposes that Congress expand the jurisdiction of individuals to file RICO suits against the Executive Branch. Such a move would put Congress on a collision course with Obama’s imperial abuse of executive power, but it would free Congress from having to do the hard work of engaging in prolonged confrontations with Obama; something they have already shown they lack the stomach and spine to do.</p>
<p>Imagine if the family of murdered border patrol agent Brian Terry were to lodge a RICO suit against the Obama administration, Shapiro suggests.</p>
<p>Ben Shapiro argues that the process can begin with targeting lower level officials, much as the FBI begins at the bottom rungs of a criminal enterprise, using confessions and recovered information to begin building a bigger and bigger case against the mastermind of that criminal enterprise.</p>
<p>The pattern of conduct by Obama Inc is that of a criminal enterprise following its corrupt instincts.</p>
<p>“Fast and Furious,” he writes, “sprang from the bowels of the antigun hysteria of the administration… Obama&#8217;s quest to weaken America on the international stage found its apex in the death of four Americans… the Obama administration has made a game of revealing self-serving classified information.”</p>
<p>The pattern is that of ideological complicity in nakedly criminal conduct. Each criminal act stems from an ideological motivation and is covered up for ideological reasons. The first motive is ideology, but the final motive is power. Shapiro writes that Obama has made all law dependent on his whim. That has led us to the lawlessness and anarchy, not of the powerless, but of the powerful.</p>
<p>In <em>The People Vs. Barack Obama</em>, Shapiro makes a compelling case for a criminal case against Obama and his subordinates. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he lays out a road map for fighting back against Obama’s lawlessness and restoring the rule of law.</p>
<p>A majority of Americans agree that the country is headed down the wrong path. Many however have despaired of ever putting it on the right path again. In response to a culture of lawlessness inculcated at the very top, Shapiro highlights legally creative and legally aggressive solutions for preventing the left’s organized crime from turning America from a nation of laws into a nation of thugs.</p>
<p>Barack Obama has pitted his power and popularity against the rule of law. Both can be contested by citizens willing to fight for the truth.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-people-vs-barack-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>96</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The American Boomerang &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-american-boomerang-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-american-boomerang-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-american-boomerang-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 04:00:06 +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[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nick Adams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Boomerang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Internationally renowned Australian author Nick Adams discusses how the world’s greatest ‘turnaround’ nation will do it again.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bk.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235235" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bk.jpg" alt="bk" width="193" height="294" /></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 <span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><strong>Nick Adams</strong>,</span></span> an internationally renowned Australian speaker, lecturer, author, and media commentator. He is best known for his work in the field of American exceptionalism.</p>
<p>He came on the show to discuss his new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936488841/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1936488841&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=s0231-20%22%3EThe%20American%20Boomerang:%20How%20the%20World%27s%20Greatest%20%27Turnaround%27%20Nation%20Will%20Do%20It%20Again%3C/a%3E%3Cimg%20src=%22http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=s0231-20&amp;l=as2&amp;o=1&amp;a=1936488841"><em>The American Boomerang: How the World’s Greatest ‘Turnaround’ Nation Will Do It Again</em></a>.</p>
<p><span id="fbPhotoSnowliftCaption" class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"> Don&#8217;t miss it! </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4ZH1NM9TvO0" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><span id="fbPhotoSnowliftCaption" class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption">Don&#8217;t miss this week&#8217;s second episode with conservative entrepreneur and walking encyclopedia <strong>Monty Morton, </strong>who came on the show to discuss <span id="fbPhotoSnowliftCaption" class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><strong><em>Obama&#8217;s Dependent States of America, </em></strong>analyzing how </span></span></span></span><span id="fbPhotoSnowliftCaption" class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption">Obama&#8217;s domestic and foreign policy have severely weakened the United States:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbvIxIcLOKc" target="_blank" rel="nofollow nofollow"><br />
</a></span></span><span id="fbPhotoSnowliftTagList" class="fbPhotoTagList"></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YbvIxIcLOKc" 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/the-american-boomerang-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arab Spring or Winter of Discontent?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-schnee/arab-spring-or-winter-of-discontent/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=arab-spring-or-winter-of-discontent</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-schnee/arab-spring-or-winter-of-discontent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2014 04:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Schnee]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arab Winter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spencer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert Spencer tells the truth about the war we’re in at the Wednesday Morning Club.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hn.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-225915" alt="hn" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/hn.jpg" width="183" height="276" /></a><strong>[Watch Robert Spencer&#8217;s talk to the Wednesday Morning Club <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?319376-1/book-discussion-arab-winter-comes-america">here</a>. Order his new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Winter-Comes-America-Truth-ebook/dp/B00IHGU388/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1400621987&amp;sr=8-1-spell&amp;keywords=arab+wonter+comes+to+america">here</a>.]</strong></p>
<p>In Beverly Hills on May 12, Robert Spencer spoke about his new book, “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Winter-Comes-America-Truth-ebook/dp/B00IHGU388/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1400621987&amp;sr=8-1-spell&amp;keywords=arab+wonter+comes+to+america">Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About The War We’re In</a>,” at the Wednesday Morning Club’s monthly luncheon.</p>
<p>Spencer is the author of 13 books, the most notable of which are “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” and “The Truth About Muhammad.” His new book, he said, describes how nobody who speaks out about the real goals of Islam is spared by either the liberal main-stream media or those on the political left who seem unable or, worse still, unwilling to define the destructive intentions which Islam has towards America and the West.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, said Spencer, these destructive intentions have been public knowledge for quite some time. In 2008, the Holy Land Foundation, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, was convicted of raising money for the terrorist group Hamas, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its leaders were given life sentences for funneling $12 million to Hamas. During the trial documents revealed a strategy paper that stated:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Ikhwan (Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God&#8217;s religion is made victorious over all other religions.</p></blockquote>
<p>It went on to say that this process requires a &#8220;mastery of the art of &#8216;coalitions&#8217;, the art of &#8216;absorption&#8217; and the principles of &#8216;cooperation&#8217;.&#8221;</p>
<p>In other words, the scheme is to ingratiate and insinuate themselves into our society by appearing to be in favor of pluralism, democratic values and common fellowship, all the time gaining trust and acceptance only to sucker punch us when the time is right. The Muslim Brotherhood is black with menace. Their hatred of America and the West is doctrinally inspired and is entirely due to the religious fanaticism which inspires Islamic supremacism.</p>
<p>In recent history, many Western leaders born and bred in the fear of the Soviet Union failed to see the resurgence of Islamic totalitarianism and the terror it always engenders. Somehow, they have been unable to identify the defining issue of our time and so imperil us all.</p>
<p>How could this have happened? How could so many governments, institutions, and political leaders, in whom so much faith and confidence were reposed, have failed so miserably?</p>
<p>The answer, of course, lies in their devotion to and confident assumptions about two of the most pernicious and utterly destructive ideologies of the last sixty years, namely multiculturalism and political correctness. Like an awful plague, they infect, corrupt, distort, and corrode everything they touch. No form of human activity has been left unscathed or undiminished by their influence. They are the worst and most insulting forms of ingratiation. They are deadly. They are partners in &#8220;Stealth Socialism&#8221; &#8212; a continuation, by other means, of communism that many confidently assumed had vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They are the unindicted co-conspirators of appeasement, defeat and surrender.</p>
<p>The inability to distinguish between the fire and the fire department is the first sign of the appeaser. Appeasement, Spencer noted, has been the preferred policy not only of the Obama administration but also of many European governments towards the theo/political/trans-national movement known as Islam or the so-called “religion of peace.” Spencer said that he, Pamela Geller and David Horowitz are often described as “out of bounds” by the politically correct elites but they never say who is “in bounds” and they go to extraordinary and even bizarre lengths to give cover to Islamists who seek our ruin.</p>
<p>A good example of this was when the Fort Hood massacre was classified as “work-place violence,” and in the official report of those murders the word “Islam” was never mentioned. General George W. Casey said that the shooting was a horrific tragedy but if the diversity of the country or the diversity of the Army became a casualty as a result of the 13 murders then that would be even worse.  This illustrates just how far the termites have traveled and how well they have feasted. Mistakenly arguing that there is a big difference between terrorists and the tenets of Islam the Obama administration removed the words “terrorist,” “Jihad” and “Islamist” from all government training manuals in 2011 and insisted that all security agents be retrained. The administration is determined to deny that “jihad” is done in the name of Islam and that it is a direct precept of it, encouraged and sanctioned in the Qur&#8217;an and in the hadiths, which are Islam’s title deeds.</p>
<p>From 2010, when Spencer helped to train U.S. law enforcement agencies and the CIA about the motives and intentions of Islam, he went to being banned in 2013 although his message had not changed during that time. Instead, U.S. government security agencies were told to invite Muslim Brotherhood front groups to conduct diversity training. In 2013, the British government prohibited Spencer’s entry into the U.K. because they claimed his presence might be disruptive. Yet, a Saudi sheik who had called violent jihad “an honor for the believer” was permitted entry.</p>
<p>Spencer told the audience that he has been called an Islamophobe and an intellectual terrorist merely for exposing the raw nerve of unwanted truth. There is something Orwellian about the circumstances in which Robert Spencer finds himself especially when we remember that it was Orwell who said that telling the truth in a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. By renaming acts of terror as “man caused disasters” and the war on terror as an “overseas contingency operation” the Obama administration has demonstrated that it has adopted the narrative of our enemies and thus virtually ensures our defeat.</p>
<p>Stranded in a state of developmental immaturity, Islam steals from history believing that the creation of a new past will justify its right to change the future in its favor. Spencer indicted the main-stream media and our law enforcement agencies as being complicit in this theft.</p>
<p>Charges of “Islamophobia,” an entirely spurious phenomenon, are leveled against anyone who objects to the Islamization of America as it attempts to ingratiate itself into the foundational fabric of our national life. It is Islam’s way of crying before it gets hit and is one of the main reasons why so many Americans are suffering from the very real phenomenon of Islamo-nausea.</p>
<p>Nothing is more disturbing to minds muddled by an impoverished ideology than a dash of clear thinking. Such thinking is, after all, potentially lethal to them. If it were to catch on it might end their careers. It is always such a pleasure to listen to Robert Spencer apply such clear thinking to the treacherous agenda of the Islamists and their fellow travelers whose opinions have been formed by using something other than precise analysis.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/paul-schnee/arab-spring-or-winter-of-discontent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Israeli Solution</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jeff-ludwig/the-israeli-solution-3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-israeli-solution-3</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jeff-ludwig/the-israeli-solution-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Ludwig]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arabs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[one-state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=222677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Caroline Glick's new book corrects many faulty notions about the Jewish State.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9780385348065_p0_v1_s260x420.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-222679" alt="9780385348065_p0_v1_s260x420" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9780385348065_p0_v1_s260x420-232x350.jpg" width="232" height="350" /></a></span><strong>To order Caroline Glick&#8217;s new book, <em>The Israeli Solution</em>, click <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Israeli-Solution-One-State-Middle/dp/0385348061">here</a>. </strong></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Caroline Glick’s latest book, <em>The Israeli</em></span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;"> Solution, </i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">carefully explains the political, legal, demographic, and military position of Israel in the modern world.  She corrects many faulty notions that are prevalent about Israel.  The reader learns from her that Israel was not created as an emotional reaction by a world horrified by the Holocaust.  Its legitimacy and destiny as a state is grounded in historical and political realities that antedate the Holocaust and in the prayerful longings of the Jewish people to be restored to and to rule their own homeland after dispossession by the vengeful Romans 20 centuries ago.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Although Glick does not place much emphasis on the visionary and incredibly determined work of Theodore Herzl and Chaim Weizman, their vision is foundational and cannot be separated from the existence of present-day Israel.   Rather, she derives Israel’s right to exist primarily from three sources: </span>the continued presence of Jews in the territory now called Israel for 2000 years, the Palestine Mandate to the British, and from the British after World War I, and U.N. Resolution 181 which established the state of Israel (as a Jewish state).</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">With amazing logic and compelling detail, she depicts every phase and aspect of Israel’s struggle to come into existence and remain in existence from 1920 until the present.  The reader can see plainly that the Arab world accepted France’s mandate to create an independent Syria and Lebanon and the legitimacy of the British prerogative to create Iraq and Jordan, but at the same time found the British mandate for a Jewish state to be illegal and untenable.  Self-determination became a by-word, a new, significant idea in international affairs after WWI and especially after Wilson’s Fourteen Points, but self-determination for the Jews, who had remained as a continuous presence in Palestine for 2000 years – to this, the Arab world’s resounding answer was &#8220;no.&#8221;  Israel has had to struggle all these decades against a pathological and almost fiendish opposition by the Arab world to her claims.  <em>The Israeli </em></span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Solution</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> is utterly and properly offended by the racism and religious bigotry of the Arab world with respect to the Jews living in their midst.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Glick depicts with seeming effortless, elegant writing the hatred of the PLO towards Israel and towards Jews.  The book corrects many myths about the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world.  One myth in particular stands out, namely, that Yasser Arafat &#8220;failed&#8221; in his goals because the two-state reality of Israel and an Arab Palestine was never realized despite his engagement in the Oslo process.  She debunks the idea of his failure, but in beautiful detail demonstrates the extent of his success.  With the help of the USSR, Arafat managed to create a worldwide diplomatic climate of opinion hostile to Israel where many countries now believe, falsely, that Israel is a colonialist power in the Middle East and racist to the core.  This portrayal fits the Marxist interpretation that the West needs to be “imperialistic” in order to perpetuate capitalism, but that, by historical necessity, the West is thereby sowing the seeds of its own destruction.  In short, so-called imperialism is slated to self-destruct and will bring down the colonialists with it. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this narrative with respect to Israel’s role in the Middle East &#8212; in which Israelis are colonialist exploiters of the Palestinian Arab people &#8212; was firmly entrenched.   It is a narrative that has been played thousands of times until, for many ears, it has the ring of truth.  But Caroline Glick argues forcefully on every page for the falsity of this vision.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Further, Arafat was bailed out time and time again by the U.S., lionized by a sycophantic world press for his “flexibility” and “moderation,” and excused for his masterminding of massacres and murders.  He was behind the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympic games in Munich, his Intifada killed hundreds of Israelis, and he repeatedly broke every signed agreement made under the Oslo Accords.  Yet he remained the teflon terrorist throughout.  After being kicked out of Jordan and Lebanon by his fellow Arabs, the U.S. found a place of sanctuary for him and his cohorts in Tunisia. Furthermore, the U.S. has financed the security forces of the Palestinian Authority, and thus increased significantly the dangers to Israeli life and limb, and the precariousness of Israel’s national existence.  Ms. Glick documents Arafat’s criminal intentions and actions with overwhelming detail, and yet, as she sadly reports, he remained supported and encouraged by a long list of U.S. presidents.  </span></p>
<p>Negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs, the book tells us, have stagnated into a failed prioritizing of the so-called “two-state solution.”  Yet, Glick avers, the two-state solution is the cause of the twenty-year stalemate.  It is not a viable solution.  In fact, the Palestinian Arabs have rejected the establishment of their own state on four different occasions.  The assumption that we have “just barely missed” working out a final solution is a wrong conclusion. Rather, she posits that the Palestinian leadership does not want a two-state solution, but wants the destruction of the State of Israel as a sovereign, Jewish entity in the Middle East.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Her solution to the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (often improperly called “the West Bank”) is to follow actions taken by Prime Minister Begin who placed the Golan Heights and Jerusalem under Israeli law in the 1980s.  Although technically those areas were not annexed to Israel, placing them under Israeli law was a </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">de facto</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> annexation.  They were no longer administered by the military.   Palestinian Arabs and many Western journalists seem to think that Israeli military presence means territories are “occupied,” but it does not.  The military is there to protect Israeli interests while the disputed territories are engaged in &#8220;dispute resolution&#8221; with interested parties.  Once Israeli law is put into effect, Israel would be unilaterally affirming the end of &#8220;dispute&#8221; and settling the question of control.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">With passion and care, the author reviews the pros and cons of taking such a step.  She expresses a great deal of concern about the European reaction to such a move.  Also, there would certainly be </span>fallout from increasing the number of Arab permanent residents and/or citizens as part of Israeli demographics.  Yet, this big step will give relief from the cul-de-sac Israel now finds itself in, where she endlessly negotiates for a two-state solution that the Palestinian Arabs do not want. The endgame for current Palestinian chief Mahmoud Abbas is the destruction of Israel.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><em>The Israeli Solution</em> projects an alternative to the dangerous gamesmanship and perpetual war we have witnessed in the quest for a so-called two-state solution.  Yet, is it really wise to try to absorb a fiendish population – people mired in rage, mental instability, and rigid ideology – into one’s country?  Before attempting to do so, a much more aggressive public relations campaign is needed to counteract Arab and Soviet-era propaganda about Israel.  This campaign would put the moral onus where it belongs – on the attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of the Arab enemy.</span></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/jeff-ludwig/the-israeli-solution-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Imagine Living in a Socialist USA</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronald-radosh/imagine-living-in-a-socialist-usa/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=imagine-living-in-a-socialist-usa</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronald-radosh/imagine-living-in-a-socialist-usa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2014 04:29:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronald Radosh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist socialist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMAGINE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ron radosh]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new book imagines a future in which no sane person would ever choose to live. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/imagine.gif"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221699" alt="imagine" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/imagine.gif" width="280" height="426" /></a><strong>Francis Goldin, Debby Smith and Michael Steven Smith, eds., <i>Imagine Living in a Socialist USA</i>, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2014) 304 pp., $15.99</strong></p>
<p>This dreadful book has one redeeming quality: it admits candidly what the Left in America really wants when it says that its goal is a socialist country. Meant to be a recruiting tool as well as a morale booster for the Left, this book leads to a very different conclusion than its editors and authors intend.</p>
<p>Karl Marx, who, aside from that one famous sentence that when the communist golden age was finally reached, men would hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon and relax at night, never wrote anything about how the communist future would actually work or what it would look like. The editors of <i>Imagine, </i>on the other hand, have tried for a book that paints an explicit portrait of the utopian future they are sure is just around the corner. They’ve recruited the usual suspects to help them out: including Bill Ayers, Michael Moore, Michael Ratner, Blanche Wiesen Cook, Frances Fox Piven, Mumia Abu-Jumal, Angela Davis, Juan Gonzalez and Leslie Cagan, among many others.</p>
<p>The first thing one notices when looking over the contributors is that there is no longer any differentiation between the Old Communist Left and the New Left. They are now one and the same, united in the hope of creating a revolution, or as Barack Obama once put it, a “fundamental transformation” of the United States. This did not happen, as some of them hoped and expected, in “one step” once Obama got elected. They now realize that whether or not it happens is up to them.  Hence this half-witted blueprint.</p>
<p>I read through as many of the essays as I could stand, until the brain dwarfing unreality became too daunting.  The editors did not take seriously the fundamental principle that boredom is the great enemy of human life.</p>
<p>The first section of <i>Imagine</i> is devoted to a critique of capitalism; the second is meant “to inspire hope”; the third, to imagining what life in a socialist America would be like.</p>
<p>Turning to the last section first, it is immediately apparent that the socialist future imagined here is not a place that anyone in his or her right mind would choose to live.  When you read radical lawyer Michael Ratner’s speculation about what he would do if he became Attorney General of the United States, for instance, you’ll change your mind about Eric Holder being the worst possible person in that post. Ratner would “handcuff the FBI,” parole every “supposed” political prisoner (a list that includes a group of heavy hitters); end the prosecution of “truth-tellers” like Edward Snowden; indict Barack Obama for “murder by targeted assassination,” followed by similar charges against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others.</p>
<p>Then there is City University of New York historian Clifford D. Conner, who among other things is an editor of a volume titled <i>The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest</i>. As you might expect, he tells his readers “there is no avoiding the word ‘revolution’ to describe the necessary transformation” that lies ahead for America. But despite the grim and probably sanguinary prognosis, Conner is quite optimistic that the pieces are in place for this future. All you need is, first,  a “rebellious mass movement,” that would quickly ignite “a revolutionary situation”; then the old vanguard party to lead the protestors to wrest “control of the state away from the booboisie”; and finally the “conquest of state power.” Piece of cake.  Connor’s solution is old-style Leninism tarted up for modern occasions; thousands of the old Communist Party pamphlets he obviously grew up on given a little cosmetic surgery and then presented as a new face. God help the students who enroll in this man’s courses.</p>
<p>In the second section, “Imagining Socialism,” the highlight is Fred Jerome’s article about how the news media would function in a socialist USA. I have already written about an excerpt that appeared in <i>Salon</i>, and you can read my lengthy discussion of what Jerome says <a href="http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/01/24/what-the-left-has-in-mind-for-the-media-in-their-communist-utopia-the-prescriptions-of-comrade-jerome/http:/pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/01/24/what-the-left-has-in-mind-for-the-media-in-their-communist-utopia-the-prescriptions-of-comrade-jerome/">here</a>. The bio in this book tells readers about all the mainstream publications Jerome has written for, and that HUAC subpoenaed him in the 1960s. It leaves out the quaint fact that he was a leader of the American young Communist movement in the 1950s, the son of the Party’s cultural commissar V. J. Jerome, and one of the founding members of the Maoist breakaway from the CPUSA, the so-called Progressive Labor Party. Obviously, Jerome does not want readers to know about the tradition from which he comes, or that rather than being a “new” socialist he is an old Red, the likes of which by now should have been stuffed and put in the Smithsonian.</p>
<p>Proving faithful to his Marxist-Leninist father’s ideology, Jerome’s prescriptions for journalism could be modeled on the Soviet era <i>Pravda</i> and Fidel Castro’s <i>Granma</i>. In his perfect world, the media would function as a mechanism of control by the country’s revolutionary leaders, who would seek to create enthusiasm for the citizens to fulfill what Jerome, in a possible Freudian slip, calls their “production-distribution quotas.”  The press in the society Jerome envisions will lose its freedom overnight, just as it did under the reign of Hugo Chavez, the hero of so many of the contributors to this anthology. But the kept press of capitalism deserves such a fate. As Jerome says, the U.S. media is controlled by “a grand total of six mega-corporations—Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, and Comcast.” These evil corporate conglomerates are simply “tools used by the 1 percent to rule and fool.” (It might surprise Comrade Jerome to discover that the book in which his essay appears is published by Harper Collins, a firm that as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollinshttps:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollins">Wikipedia</a> tells us, is owned by — you guessed it — none other than Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation itself, another illustration, presumably, of Lenin’s wise observation that “the capitalists will sell us the rope we’ll use to hang them.”)</p>
<p>This section has some other gems also worth mentioning.  Harriet Fraad and Tess Fraad-Woolf pine for a society in which “we are all basically equal,” which would eliminate shame for those who do not live like “the rich and famous.” Junk food would disappear; everyone would not only have free health care, but soon we would have a health system &#8212;-I kid you not&#8212;-as good as that of Communist Cuba! (“Imagine,” they write, “how healthy we could be in our rich nation if medicine were socialized like Cuba’s.”) Like Michael Moore, they obviously are completely unaware that only tourists and apparatchiks have any decent medical services, and that the bulk of the Cuban population is lucky to get one rationed aspirin when ill.</p>
<p>Oh, and don’t forget that finally Americans will have good sex under socialism, since like Sweden, sex education will begin in the first grade. In this polymorphous perverse utopia, “all kind of mutual loving” will be celebrated, “gay, straight and trans-gender.” Somehow, Fraad and Fraad-Woolf fail to address the well-known suppression of homosexuals in their beloved revolutionary Cuba.  But while such facts may be stubborn things, there’s always affirmation in the larger picture. Historian Blanche Wiesen Cook, another contributor, explains that in the big picture “progressive and socialist women understood that economic security combined with feminism and sexual freedom were required for individual serenity and community harmony.”</p>
<p>Finally, the former terrorist and Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers gives readers his educational philosophy, which comes down to a one-liner: schools should prepare students to be socialist revolutionaries. His educational summum bonum is indoctrination, and it is indeed frightening to realize that Ayers should be regarded as a distinguished educational theorist; indispensable man in the nation’s education schools.  He wants schools to create the new socialist man; even more he wants the destruction of the educational status quo in which “schools for compliance and conformity” produce citizens who accept the “pigeonhole” into which they were born.</p>
<p>Ayers favors what he calls “teaching toward freedom and democracy,” euphemisms for what he once publicly stated, standing next to the late Hugo Chavez, was the essence of the Venezuelan system of education which sooner or later would have to be adopted in the USA as a model. That is “socialist education” which adopts Marx’s belief that “the fullest development of each is the condition for the full development of all.”</p>
<p>Ayers calls for a “liberating pedagogy” in which “alternative and insurgent classrooms” teach “mind-blowing” ideas.  But you can be sure that students in the socialist future will not have their minds blown by exposure to the strengths of democratic capitalism and that they will experience no remorse or relief from the Marxist views and beliefs of their professors, reading from the gospel according to Howard Zinn, who teach them that the United States is the greatest oppressor in the world and that its past history is one of unmitigated evil.</p>
<p>The idea for this book comes from a woman named Frances Goldin, who is described as an 88-year-old socialist, who has two goals she wants to see before she passes from the earth&#8212;“get Mumia Abu-Jamal out of prison and edit a book about what America might be like if it were socialist.” I do not know much about Ms. Goldin, aside from her bio that tells us that when she first heard the word socialist when she was 18, it “sounded like a great idea.” With the publication of <i>Imagine</i>, she has achieved part of her life’s ambition.  We can only hope that she will go to her socialist grave with the other half being unrequited.</p>
<p>What is striking about the book is how the current generation of self-proclaimed socialists writing in this volume have carried on a bankrupt tradition, pouring poisoned old wine into new bottles by adding a veneer of concern for leftist environmentalism, gay and transgender rights and feminism to the old model of socialist revolution. The entire way in which they refer to a new revolutionary future and system is advocacy by other means for exactly the kinds of systems that produced charnel houses in the old Soviet Union and Maoist China, and in Communist Cuba and North Korea today.</p>
<p>One of the blurbs for the book comes from a man who once considered himself part of the early New Left, the writer Paul Buhle. He thinks that this book will have the effect Edward Bellamy’s <i>Looking Backward,</i> which converted Eugene V. Debs to socialism, had in the late 19<sup>th</sup> Century. I think that we already know that Mr. Buhle’s dream is dead on arrival, which is just as well because as the 19<sup>th</sup> century and its successor showed, it was actually a nightmare in disguise.</p>
<p>I will end with a prediction of my own, quite different than that offered by Buhle. Anyone who innocently picks up and reads this book will forever be turned off by the claim that socialism should be America’s future. Perhaps we conservatives should be handing <i>Imagine</i> out as a sure way to advance our cause.</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><b>Make sure to </b><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ronald-radosh/imagine-living-in-a-socialist-usa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>124</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Israeli Solution</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/janet-tassel/the-israeli-solution-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-israeli-solution-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/janet-tassel/the-israeli-solution-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Janet Tassel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Israeli Solution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=220567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Caroline Glick's new book proposes a one-state plan for peace in the Middle East.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div data-iceapc="49" data-iceapw="2137">
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="61"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cg.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-220568" alt="cg" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/cg-233x350.jpg" width="233" height="350" /></a><strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>[Caroline Glick will be speaking about her new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Solution-One-State-Peace-Middle/dp/0385348061/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1393316435&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+israeli+solution">The Israeli Solution</a>,</strong><strong> to the Wednesday Morning Club in Los Angeles on March 25, 2014.  For more info, <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wmc-caroline-glick-tickets-10631433905">click here</a>.]</strong></p>
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="61"><strong>Reprinted from <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/">The American Thinker</a>.</strong></p>
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="61">To Caroline Glick, senior contributing editor at the <em data-iceapw="2">Jerusalem Post,</em> the concept of a &#8220;two-state solution,&#8221; carving an invented state of Palestine from the tiny body of Israel and hopefully expecting the two resulting entities to live in harmony is, at best, a &#8220;chimera.&#8221;  Worse, it is a &#8220;humiliating, dangerous nightmare&#8221;; and worst of all, it spells the end of Israel.</p>
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="62">What Glick proposes in her provocative new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Israeli-Solution-One-State-Middle/dp/0385348061/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1393528147&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=The+Israeli+Solution"><em>The Israeli Solution</em></a><em data-iceapw="10">: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East,</em> (available March 4) is to brush away the web of mischief, ignorance, deceit and hatred that surrounds the &#8220;peace plan,&#8221; and with newfound clarity, get rid of the misbegotten thing entirely.  In its place, she proposes a one-state plan, the one state being Israel.</p>
<p data-iceapw="4">In Glick&#8217;s own words:</p>
<blockquote data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="55">
<p data-iceapw="55">The Israeli one-state plan entails the application of Israeli law&#8211; and through it, Israeli sovereignty&#8211; over the west bank of the Jordan River: the area that, from biblical times through the 1950s, was known to the world as Judea and Samaria.  In Israel, Judea and Samaria remain the terms used to refer to the territory….</p>
</blockquote>
<p data-iceapw="66">Judea and Samaria are the terms she uses throughout.  Israel having withdrawn from Gaza in 2005, Glick does not include Gaza in her plan, nor does she believe, for legal and strategic reasons, that it should be reabsorbed into Israel.  Her one-state solution, the application of Israeli law and sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, which is &#8220;based on actual Israeli rights rather than fictitious Israeli culpability,&#8221;</p>
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="60"><em data-iceapw="60">would liberate Israel to craft coherent strategies for contending with the…evolving regional threat and the international assault on its right to exist….Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will increase the security of all.   It will transform the region from one governed alternatively by a military government and a terrorist kleptocracy into one governed by a unified, liberal rule of law.</em></p>
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="116">The sine qua non of her plan, of course, is the understanding that the Jewish people are the indigenous Palestinians, not &#8220;colonial usurpers&#8221; or &#8220;occupying powers.&#8221;  &#8220;At no time,&#8221; she reminds us, &#8220;have there been no Jews in the Land of Israel.&#8221;  She gives us census figures from the Roman holocaust of the first century CE and the subsequent Bar Kochba rebellion up to the 19<sup data-iceapw="1">th</sup> century &#8220;dawn of modern Zionism,&#8221; when Jews again were the majority in Jerusalem.  And she touches on some of the archeological finds that suggest a significant Jewish presence as early as 1050 BCE.   Considering that the Palestinians have been trying to erase all vestiges of Jewish presence in Israel,</p>
<p data-iceapw="41">[T]he reconstitution of the Jewish state in the Land of Israel is an unprecedented historic accomplishment.  No other indigenous people has preserved its national identity for so long and against such great odds, only to repatriate itself to its historic homeland….</p>
<p data-iceapw="129" data-iceapc="1">But Glick stresses that her one-state plan is not intended as punishment of the Palestinians.  On the contrary, she repeatedly demonstrates that Israeli rule has always been and will continue to be of great benefit to the Palestinians.  After the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, for instance, Israel&#8217;s recapture of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria was, for the Palestinian Arabs, &#8220;an economic and civil rights boon.&#8221; The entire population of 65,000 &#8220;lined up to receive Israeli identification cards that granted them permanent residency status in Israel.&#8221; Among the positive results of &#8220;Israel&#8217;s benign rule,&#8221; she cites impressive statistics on improved Arab living standards, employment, GDP, literacy, schools and universities, life expectancy (48 in 1967, 72 in 2000), infant mortality, clinics, sewage, electricity and health insurance.  Equally important,</p>
<blockquote data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="47">
<p data-iceapw="47">[U]nder Israeli rule, the Palestinians of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza exercised political freedoms that were nonexistent in the rest of the Arab world.  These included freedom of association, freedom of the press, enfranchisement of women, and the ability to seek the protection of the Israeli court system.</p>
</blockquote>
<p data-iceapw="45">Keep in mind that during the illegal Jordanian occupation of Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967, not only were Jews prohibited from buying land, but any Arab accused of selling land to Jews faced the death penalty, and in many cases, still may.</p>
<p data-iceapw="100">Moving us to the present impasse requires Glick, of course, to provide a look at the historical background and context.  In her necessarily condensed summary, Glick draws an inexorable line from European anti-Semitism through the treacheries of the British, with their Peel Commission and infamous White Paper, and the murderous antics of their Nazi sidekick Haj Amin El-Husseini, inventor of the Palestinians.  Then come the spawn of El-Husseini, Arafat and now Abbas.  There was the insanity of the Oslo Accords, which led in turn to the American &#8220;bipartisan pipe dream,&#8221; currently embodied in the tragicomic farce that is John Kerry.</p>
<p data-iceapw="75">This is a history of heroes, villains and dupes, including numerous Israelis.  But when it comes to American involvement, no one escapes whipping.  In the face of continuous and open Palestinian calls for the complete destruction of the Jewish state, American administrations from Nixon&#8217;s to Obama&#8217;s have committed themselves to some version of a plan to establish a Palestinian state on all or most of the land won by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.</p>
<p data-iceapw="156">The story of American pro-Palestinianism does not make for pleasant reading.  It is difficult to be reminded of the slippery words of Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama; to confront again the loony obsession with Israel while the entire world is ablaze; to have to face, as Glick forces us to do, that were it not for America&#8217;s feckless policy, the PLO would probably have self-destructed.  To add to the irony, the Arab world would not have cared: Witness King Hussein of Jordan&#8217;s 1970 slaughter of thousands of Palestinians.  Or recall that in 1982, when Israel forced the PLO out of Lebanon, &#8220;no Arab regime offered to host them.  It took U.S.  pressure to persuade Tunisia to accept them.  It would seem, says Glick, that the &#8220;wider Arab world&#8217;s assessment of Arafat was voiced by Jordan&#8217;s King Hussein, who reportedly remarked, &#8216;Arafat never came to a bridge that he didn&#8217;t double-cross.&#8217;&#8221;  But successive American administrations were snookered.</p>
<p data-iceapw="101">One significant result of this misguided policy is that it &#8220;has affected America&#8217;s ability to assess Israel&#8217;s strategic importance to U.S.  national security; to understand the motivations and interests of Israel&#8217;s Arab neighbors; and to comprehend how those motivations and interests affect those of the United States.&#8221;  Worse yet, it has damaged American standing in the Arab world.  And perhaps most damaging, the United States has failed to learn from Israeli experience: &#8220;Israel&#8217;s experience in Lebanon was a textbook case for how events would likely unfold for the United States and its British allies in Iraq.&#8221; If only we&#8217;d paid attention.</p>
<p data-iceapw="8">Glick, then, provides three options open to Israel:</p>
<p data-iceapw="59">1.  Reassert the military government as the sole governing body [in Judea and Samaria].  This response, she says, is not tenable over the long term.  The Palestinians definitely live better under Israel&#8217;s military government than they did under any previous government.  However, &#8220;both Arabs and Jews have the right to expect to be governed by a democratic, civilian government.&#8221;</p>
<p data-iceapw="58">2.  Maintain the current dual governance by the [Israeli] military government and the Palestinian Authority.  If this were possible, she says, &#8220;the two-state paradigm would also be viable &#8212; and indeed, a Palestinian state would have been established fifteen years ago.&#8221;  But once again, the Palestinian hierarchy is completely opposed to peaceful co-existence with the Jewish state, period.</p>
<p data-iceapw="30">3.  Incorporate Judea and Samaria into sovereign Israel.  This, of course, is Glick&#8217;s proposal, and, she stresses, for many strategic reasons, the sooner the better.  As she describes the plan,</p>
<blockquote data-iceapc="6" data-iceapw="152">
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="51"><em data-iceapw="51">Applying Israeli law to the areas would end the authoritarian repression that the Palestinians suffer under the rule of the Palestinian Authority.   As permanent residents of Israel, with the option of applying for Israeli citizenship, the Palestinians would find themselves living in a liberal democracy where their individual rights are protected.</em></p>
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="50"><em data-iceapw="50">Contingent on security concerns—applied on individual rather than on a communal basis—Palestinians will have the right to travel and live anywhere they wish within Israeli territory.  Similarly, Israeli Jews will also be allowed to live anywhere they wish.  All prohibitions on property and land sales to Jews will be abrogated.</em></p>
<p data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="51"><em data-iceapw="51">From the outset, as permanent residents of Israel, Palestinians will have the right to elect their local governments.  Those that receive Israeli citizenship…will also be allowed to vote in national elections for the Knesset.  The Israeli education system will be open to them.  The Israeli economy will be open to them.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p data-iceapw="45">Washington will have to &#8220;acknowledge that the two-state paradigm has been a disastrous failure,&#8221; but it will be able finally to cease its funding of the Palestinian Authority.  The Israeli military government will be dissolved, and the PA will no longer be the Palestinians&#8217; representative.</p>
<p data-iceapw="79">Glick sees one immediate problem: &#8220;the sudden influx of a large, unassimilated Arab population,&#8221; but she sees it as a potential burden on Israel&#8217;s welfare services, not as a demographic &#8220;time bomb,&#8221; as is often feared.  She whacks this straw man, noting that &#8220;the actual population data &#8212; together with current population growth trends for Israel and the Palestinians &#8212; make clear that there is no Palestinian demographic time bomb.  In fact, demography is one of Israel&#8217;s greatest advantages.&#8221;</p>
<p data-iceapw="45">To be sure, there are many potential problems, and perhaps the least persuasive section of the book attempts to deal with some of the &#8220;likely responses,&#8221; which are, after all, unknowable.  But Glick is nothing if not intrepid, and we, fingers crossed, follow her arguments.</p>
<p data-iceapw="4">The Palestinians, for example:</p>
<blockquote data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="78">
<p data-iceapw="78">The Palestinians have two means of responding to an Israeli decision to apply Israeli law to Judea and Samaria: terrorism and diplomatic warfare.   But these are, of course, the same means available to them today…and the Palestinians are already operating at full capacity or near-full capacity in both spheres.   As a result, it is difficult to imagine how the Palestinians could respond more forcefully to an Israeli one-state plan than they are already behaving on a daily basis.</p>
</blockquote>
<p data-iceapw="46">Of course, terrorism would still be a possibility, and even a &#8220;massacre.&#8221; But, she coolly asserts, &#8220;Such an attack would likely be a one-time deal,&#8221; and Israel, which experienced a &#8220;sustained campaign of mass terrorism&#8221; from September 2000 to April 2002, will not suffer another such.</p>
<p data-iceapw="57">Another threat that cannot be ignored is that the Palestinians &#8220;might call for an international boycott of Israel.&#8221;  But the attractiveness of Israel&#8217;s economy minimizes the effectiveness of that option.  &#8220;In Britain, for instance, hatred for Israel is galloping, yet bilateral trade between Israel and Britain is booming and growing, with the trade balance in Israel&#8217;s favor.&#8221;</p>
<p data-iceapw="47">What about Egypt? It is far from clear, says Glick, that Egypt &#8220;has the logistical capacity to move its U.S.- made M1A1 Abrams tanks across the Sinai to engage Israeli forces, and to replenish its forces with spare parts, food, and reinforcements.   Egypt is, in fact, impoverished.&#8221;</p>
<p data-iceapw="46">And Jordan? &#8220;[T]he Hashemite regime&#8217;s likely, indeed all-but-certain response to an Israeli decision to apply its laws to Judea and Samaria will be to publicly condemn the move and privately celebrate it.&#8221; It is also far from certain how long the Hashemites will be in power.</p>
<p data-iceapw="75">Then, of course, there is Syria, &#8220;deeply dangerous for Israel and for the wider region.&#8221; But under the awful circumstances of today&#8217;s Syria, &#8220;Assad would have little capacity to respond.&#8221; Hezb’allah is the wild card: Now tied down in Syria, it is weaker at home.  Should Iran emerge as a nuclear power, Hezb’allah would be freer to concentrate on Israel.  Thus, she repeats, &#8220;Israel would be well advised&#8221; to make its move before that happens.</p>
<p data-iceapw="85">Her predictions about Europe are the most convincing.  A pacifist, de-militarized, toothless giant, Europe, she feels, poses absolutely no military threat.   Its only coherent foreign policy, she says, is its hatred for Israel.  Then too, &#8220;EU member state governments aggressively compete with each other in courting Israeli internet, biomedical, agri-tech, and other high-tech companies to partner with their countries.&#8221; And for Israel&#8217;s part, with its newfound Asian partners rapidly expanding trade with Israel, it may in the end need Europe less than Europe needs Israel.</p>
<p data-iceapw="19">Finally and most importantly, Glick turns back to America, for whom she frankly admits she is writing this book:</p>
<blockquote data-iceapc="1" data-iceapw="70">
<p data-iceapw="70">[T]he Israeli one-state plan will liberate Americans from the stranglehold of the two-state solution&#8217;s mythology.   For the first time in a generation, American foreign policy hands, politicians, and regular citizens will be able to see the Arab and Islamic worlds for what they are, and not view them through the distorting, mendacious lens of a policy paradigm that falsely places the blame for all their failings and problems on Israel.</p>
</blockquote>
<p data-iceapw="16">In other words, the United States will regain something it seems to have lost: the truth.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/janet-tassel/the-israeli-solution-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Black Book of the American Left</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/theodore-dalrymple/the-black-book-of-the-american-left/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-black-book-of-the-american-left</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/theodore-dalrymple/the-black-book-of-the-american-left/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Theodore Dalrymple]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Black Book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz's new collection unveils the heart of progressive darkness. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/tbb.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-213426" alt="tbb" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/tbb.jpg" width="300" height="454" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz&#8217;s &#8220;<em>The Black Book of the American Left, Volume I: My Life And Times,&#8221; </em><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Ever since Stéphane Courtois published his <em>The Black Book of Communism</em>, there has been a deluge of black books, particularly in France, where the latest is that of Vichy. David Horowitz’s <em>Black Book</em> is that of the American left, which he charges – with a great deal of cumulative evidence – of equivocation towards, support for and outright complicity with the Soviet Union. Ignorance of the horrors of Soviet rule was not an excuse, because the horrors were known and documented from the very first, and for decades the left preferred to ignore the facts than abandon its fantasies. And although the American left was not responsible for much violence in America itself, there was hardly any revolutionary violence that to which it did not provide aid and comfort, repeating its original <em>sin ad nuaseam</em>. In the process it rewrote its own history as assiduously and dishonestly as Stalin wrote his.</p>
<p>It is against the attempt by intellectuals to disconnect the ideas that their words express and the deeds that those ideas have inspired, condoned or encouraged, that David Horowitz has written for a quarter of a century. He has focused his powerful guns on the American left for two reasons, the first personal and the second sociological, though in fact in his case the two reasons are inextricably linked. First he himself was a member of the left for much of his youth and early adulthood, and second leftist ideas of various stripes were and remain predominant in academia and among the intelligentsia.</p>
<p>He was a red diaper baby, that is to say the child of ‘orthodox’ communist parents, but by the time he came to young adulthood the Soviet Union was no longer plausibly the hope of the world. However, Horowitz did not at that stage want to throw the baby out with the diapers, and therefore helped to found the New Left. Unfortunately, the internal logic of its socialist beliefs led it to support or make excuses for totalitarian regimes such as Castro’s, just as the previous generation of orthodox communists had done. It also indulged in what would have been comic operetta revolutionism had it not been for the extreme criminal nastiness of the acts which it excused, condoned, concealed or perpetrated.</p>
<p>Horowitz’s essays collected here, written over twenty-five years, are dedicated to demonstrating that this leftism was not an ‘infantile disorder,’ to quote Lenin, or a mild and mostly harmless childhood illness like mumps, but more usually like a chronic condition with lingering after-effects and flare-ups. Those who suffered it only very rarely got over it fully, the late Christopher Hitchens being a good example of one who did not. He, Hitchens, could never bring himself to admit that he had for all his life admired and extolled a man who was at least as bad as Stalin, namely Trotsky; and his failure to renounce his choice of maître à penser became in time not just a youthful peccadillo of a clever adolescent who wanted to shock the adults but a symptom of a deep character flaw, a fundamental indifference to important truth. With the exception of Hitchens, for whom he has a soft spot and to whom in my opinion he is over-indulgent, Horowitz does not want any of the leftists to get away with it by rewriting not only history but their own biographies.</p>
<p>There is inevitably some repetition in collection. There are also things with which one might disagree: it is far too categorical, for example, to state that up to 100,000,000 people have died of malaria as a result of the ban on the use of DDT. I think the author greatly underestimates the strength of possible conservative objection, both on grounds of moral justification and practical effects, to the second Gulf War (though he admits that not all those who objected to it were motivated by American self-hating animus). He does not identify the real source of dangerous Islamism in most of the west, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which play double games if ever such double games were played, and which are not mentioned by him.</p>
<p>He is very good on the guerrilla movements in Latin America, which far from being the spontaneous and justified expression of a downtrodden peasantry, as was the received wisdom among western intellectuals at the time of those movements’ apogee, were the products of rapidly expanding numbers of university students led by leftist intellectuals. The Guatemalan guerrilla group, ORPA, for example, was led by the son of the then sole Guatemalan Nobel Prize Winner, the novelist Miguel Ángel Asturias. The worst of them all, Peru’s Sendero Luminoso, was led by a university professor of philosophy, Abimael Guzmán, who very nearly became Peru’s Pol Pot. Just as American leftist intellectuals ceased to be interested in Indochina the moment American troops left, so the fate of Central America ceased to interest them once there was no possibility that utopian leftist regimes would be established in them. Their interest in far-flung places was only as a screen upon which they could project their own psychodrama.</p>
<p>It is on the psychological reasons for eschatological leftism that Horowitz is best. Eschatological leftists, rather than genuine liberals, or for that matter eschatological nationalists or religious fanatics, are not interested in righting this or that individual wrong, reforming this or that defective institution; they aim at resetting the terms and limits of human existence itself. They are like doctors who, instead of wanting to cure illness, want to abolish death. They dream of an existence in which there are no frustrations, no contradictory desires, no conflicting interests. For them anything less than root and branch change is but a sticking plaster over a gaping wound, and anyone who enjoys the present moment is deficient in compassion for those who are not in a position to do so. The only permissible enjoyment is in fighting the good fight.</p>
<p>Why? What is the gaping wound that they want to heal? It is the transitoriness of human life to which, in the absence of religious belief, they cannot reconcile themselves, the life that Macbeth says is full of sound and fury that signifies nothing. They seek in political action that transcendence that would assure them that their lives in fact have significance; and since the problem is a metaphysical one that will never be solved, victory over eschatological political belief, of whatsoever kind, is never final or even very lasting. Indeed, as things get materially better chiliasm grows stronger, for people have greater leisure to dwell upon their dissatisfactions.</p>
<p>Horowitz’s reflections on this problem, both obvious and revelatory, are for me the best thing in these volumes, and express very succinctly why conservatism, at least of the kind that I favour, is an attitude to life rather than a doctrine:</p>
<blockquote><p>It became clear to me that the world was not going to be changed into anything very different… from what it had been. On this earth there would be no kingdom of freedom where swords would be turned into plowshares and lions would lie down with lambs. It should have been obvious when I began. Many things change but people do not. Otherwise how could Shakespeare, or writers more ancient, capture in their creations a reality that we recognize, and that still moves us today?</p></blockquote>
<p>He continues:</p>
<blockquote><p>These revelations had a humbling effect. They took my attention away from noble fantasies that had enveloped me and forced me to focus on my ordinary existence; to see how common it was; how un-heroic, ordinary and unredeemed. The revelations that shattered my faith allowed me, for the first time, to look at my mortality… I was going to die like everyone else, and be forgotten.</p></blockquote>
<p>Horowitz then realized that his political fantasies were a way of ‘averting [my] eyes from this ordinary fact.’ And ‘who would want to hear the voice of a future that was only calling them to oblivion?’</p>
<p>The leftism that Horowitz wants to combat, then, is religious, but without a god and without beauty. His short essay, A Political Romance, reminds me of the words of Joseph Conrad:</p>
<blockquote><p>I felt in my heart that the further one ventures the better one understands how everything in our life is common, short and empty; that it is in ‘seeking’ the unknown in our sensations that we discover how mediocre are our attempts and how soon defeated!</p></blockquote>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>David Horowitz</strong> discussing <a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html?key=DBERMFBVMXYH">The Black Book of the American Left</a> in <strong>The Glazov Gang&#8217;s</strong> two-part video series below:</em><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QL9WUvnJ_Cs" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeN2K6romr8" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>To sign up for </strong><em><b>The Glazov Gang</b></em><strong>: </strong><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Click here</b></a><strong>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/theodore-dalrymple/the-black-book-of-the-american-left/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High Noon for America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ion-mihai-pacepa/high-noon-for-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=high-noon-for-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ion-mihai-pacepa/high-noon-for-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 04:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ion Mihai Pacepa]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Noon For America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jamie glazov]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202844</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's catastrophic Mideast policy unveiled. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/highnoon671.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-202849" alt="highnoon67" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/highnoon671.jpg" width="300" height="452" /></a><strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Originally published at <a href="http://www.wnd.com/">WND.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>To order Jamie Glazov&#8217;s <em>High Noon</em>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-America-Coming-Showdown/dp/0986941433">click here.</a></strong></p>
<p>Once in a while, a great book – like a great red wine – becomes better over the years. <a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/books/High-Noon-for-America-The-Coming-Showdown-Paperback">“High Noon for America,”</a> by the managing editor of FrontPage Magazine, Jamie Glazov, is such a rare book.</p>
<p>This breathtaking work was published in 2012, soon after our military intervention in Libya, and it rightfully starts with an in-depth analysis of our administration’s Middle East policy. We are now facing a similar intervention in Syria, and I strongly recommend that anyone even slightly interested in foreign policy and long-term peace go back to this book.</p>
<p><a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/books/High-Noon-for-America-The-Coming-Showdown-Paperback">“High Noon for America”</a> is not Jamie Glazov’s book. It is America’s book, conceived and developed over several years of roundtable dialog between Jamie and some of the most authoritative experts in foreign policy, intelligence, political affairs, economics and religion of our day. Among them: Robert McFarlane, President Reagan’s national security adviser; Richard Pipes, former member of the National Security Council, one of the world’s leading authorities on Soviet history; Natan Sharansky, former Soviet prisoner, later member of the Israeli cabinet; Roger L. Simon, prize-wining screenwriter, founder and CEO of PJMedia; Vladimir Bukovsky, former leading Soviet dissident and candidate for president of the post-Soviet Russia; and Michael Ledeen, America’s foremost authority on Iran. Full disclosure: I also contributed to Jamie Glazov’s book, and I have been a longtime contributor to FrontPage.</p>
<p>We all want to see democracy succeed in Libya. Our precipitate intervention in that country, however, generated chaos and the horrific assassination of our ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and it should not be repeated in Syria. There are few people who wanted to see Gadhafi removed from power more than I did. He set a $2 million bounty on my head because I had revealed his secret efforts to arm international terrorists with bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction. But personal animus against Gadhafi – and now against Bashar al-Assad – should not have anything to do with the policy of the U.S.</p>
<p>The recent temporary closing of 21 U.S. embassies for fear of terrorism, a historical first, shows that we do not need more Libya-style interventions. They generate hatred, not peace. We need a coherent foreign policy aimed at protecting our country from the evil of terrorism. Former CIA Director James Woolsey just warned us that our Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse Commission and the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission have established that detonating a small nuclear weapon high above any part of the U.S. mainland would generate a catastrophic electromagnetic pulse. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324482504578455451910706908.html">Just one small nuclear explosion</a>, one the terrorist dictator of North Korea is already capable of causing, could collapse the whole U.S. electric grid and the infrastructure that depends on it – communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water – necessary to sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans.</p>
<p>I do not know what our anti-terrorist policy should be. I have no access to classified information and no wish to play the armchair general. The know-it-all talking heads in the American media are no wiser than I am. I do, however, have good reason to suggest that our administration and Congress take a serious look at President Truman’s NSC 68/1950.</p>
<p>In the words of the <a href="http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/coldwar/documents/sectioned.php?pagenumber=8&amp;documentid=10-1&amp;documentdate=1950-04-12">National Council Report 68, of 1950,</a> which set forth the strategy for wining the Cold War, “The issues that face us are momentous, involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of this Republic but of civilization itself.” Therefore, NSC 68/1950 focused on creating a “new world order” centered on American liberal-capitalist values, and it contained a two-pronged political strategy: superior military power and a “Campaign of Truth,” defined as “a struggle, above all else, for the minds of men.” Truman argued that the propaganda used by the “forces of imperialistic communism” could be overcome only by the “plain, simple, unvarnished truth.” The Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberation (soon to become Radio Liberty) became part of Truman’s “Campaign of Truth.”</p>
<p>The issues that face us are once again momentous, and we cannot solve them with more Libya-style shots across the bow. We need a new, coherent foreign policy and a new “Campaign of Truth” to deal with our contemporary problems. We also need to go back to Glazov’s book. Some of the most eminent intelligence and political experts involved in implementing NSC 68/1950 and in winning the Cold War are there, telling us how we can use that unique Cold War experience to protect our country today.</p>
<p><strong>Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest Soviet bloc official granted political asylum by the United States. His new book, “<a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/Search?search=pacepa">Disinformation</a>,” co-authored with professor Ronald Rychlak, is available in the <a href="http://superstore.wnd.com/Search?search=pacepa">WND Superstore</a>.</strong></p>
<p>*</p>
<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note: To watch a video interview in which Jamie Glazov discusses <em>High Noon for America</em> and his other works, see below:</strong></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SNJg6w6CB0o" height="300" width="400" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6sBPH589Feo" height="300" width="400" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ion-mihai-pacepa/high-noon-for-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The American Caliphate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jim-fletcher/the-american-caliphate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-american-caliphate</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jim-fletcher/the-american-caliphate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 04:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Fletcher]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical Islam At the Door In the House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=201863</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A brave new book sends out a chilling warning. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/cover.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-202229 alignleft" alt="cover" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/cover-225x350.jpg" width="225" height="350" /></a>Michael Coffman and Kate Mathieson are brave people. In an era of great peril, brought upon all of us by a sinister worldview originating in ancient Arabia, they are willing to say things in print that need to be said. For example:</p>
<blockquote><p>Evil is permeating America like never before. The penetration of our society by Islam is but one of the attacks on this great nation. Volumes have been written on the subject, but few Americans have read them.</p></blockquote>
<p>Exactly. That’s why a new book by Coffman and Mathieson, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Islam-In-The-House/dp/1481822608"><i>Radical Islam <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">At the Door</span> In the House</i></a>, is so compelling. A slim volume—on the lean side at that—the book can be read, for example, while one sits in a doctor’s waiting room (as I did). Indeed, only 85 pages of text are so jammed with information on America being overtaken by Islamic jihad there is no excuse for it not being read widely.</p>
<p>This isn’t reading for the faint-of-heart, but it is one of the most extraordinary books of 2013, and will especially be accessible and relevant for Christian audiences in America. Coffman and Mathieson have done their homework, and then some.</p>
<p>Of particular interest is a rhetorical question they ask repeatedly: Why is the Obama administration mainstreaming the Muslim Brotherhood? The answer is chilling, but those who choose to face reality rather than the bottom of a sand hole just might look back one day and see that a clear-headed assessment of Islam’s plans for America saved many lives.</p>
<p>During an election speech in Cairo, in May 2012, Brotherhood leader Muhammad Morsi stated clearly, “The Qur’an is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.”</p>
<p>Is this the kind of person an American government should prop-up? Of course not, but the question comes back to us again and again, like an ominous echo: Why is Barack Obama determined to support the Muslim Brotherhood and elsewhere aid jihadists?</p>
<p>Everywhere in <i>Radical Islam <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">At the Door</span> In the House</i>, we learn how deeply radical Islam has penetrated not only the White House, but educational institutions, interfaith religious bodies, and with the introduction of Al-Jazeera, even media. It is a grim picture that Coffman and Mathieson paint, yet there is still time to turn back this threat to liberty.</p>
<p>The authors note that jihadists like Morsi have learned a great deal about America. Morsi himself earned a Ph.D and taught for three years at California State University, Northridge. Shrewd in the extreme, the now-deposed president of Egypt has implemented every strategy the MB is using to overthrow the U.S., including meeting with evangelical leaders such as Bob Roberts, Jr.</p>
<p>Americans are trusting, and accommodating, and the jihadists exploit this to the full. As pointed out in <i>Radical Islam <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">At the Door</span> In the House</i>, our Muslim enemies in 2006 demanded:</p>
<blockquote><p>Metropolitan Airport Authority, Minneapolis-St. Paul: a cab driver can refuse to service the blind because of their dogs which are seen by many Muslims as unclean.</p></blockquote>
<p>It’s this kind of outrageous demand that goes to the heart of the jihadists’ strategy: turn Americans into <i>dhimmis</i>, a concept in Islam which demands total submission by non-Muslims to the agenda of their rulers. Although such a reality is difficult for most Americans to believe is possible, it is not only possible for Muhammad’s followers, but well within their reach.</p>
<p>As has been pointed out, the Muslim Brotherhood plan to compromise America’s Christian leaders is progressing nicely. A “Common Word” document, establishing  mutual cooperation between Islam and Christianity, has been signed by 300 church leaders, including kingpins Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. This type of gullibility places our country in danger, yet interfaith leaders work day and night to make it reality.</p>
<p>The authors point out that Obama isn’t the only U.S. president to behave strangely when it comes to confronting jihadists. In the days after 9/11, President George W. Bush allowed scores of Saudi nationals to leave the U.S., though air travel was shut down for Americans. Among those leaving was Prince Turki bin Faisal, “the widely feared head of the Saudi Intelligence Agency.” In November 2013, Faisal will be a featured speaker at Pastor Roberts’ “Global Faith Forum” at Northwood Church in Texas.</p>
<p>The authors also point out a whole host of facts that most Americans are not aware of, such as:</p>
<p>• Islamists have donated money to many American schools, including $20 million to the University of Arkansas and $5 million to Berkeley “from 2 Saudi Sheiks linked to al Qaeda.”</p>
<p>• A 2010 broadcast from Nile TV in Egypt reveals Barack Obama’s true nature regarding Islam.</p>
<p>• Muslims are taught to intentionally lie to “the enemy,” which means non-Muslims.</p>
<p><i>Radical Islam <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">At the Door</span> In the House </i>outlines so much of the jihadists’ agenda for America that readers will be truly shocked. No longer will we have the excuse that other treatments of this subject are too much to digest, too scholarly, etc. This book is meant for the masses, and it is literally vital that it gains the widest readership possible.</p>
<p>It’s that good, and that scary.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <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">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jim-fletcher/the-american-caliphate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Choosing Life in Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/choosing-life-in-israel-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=choosing-life-in-israel-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/choosing-life-in-israel-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 04:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Glazov]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arafat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Choosing Life in Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Hornik]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199071</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Author David Hornik tells a moving tale about his personal choice to leave his native United States and live in the Jewish State.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/here.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-199074" alt="here" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/here.jpg" width="315" height="193" /></a>Frontpage Interview’s guest today is P. David Hornik, a writer and translator living in Beersheba, Israel who is a columnist for Frontpage and PJ Media, and who has also been published in American Spectator, American Thinker, the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Press, Israel National News, Ynetnews, Moment, and elsewhere. He is author of the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Choosing-Life-Israel-David-Hornik/dp/0988169193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375073793&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=choosing+life+in+israel+david+hornik" target="_blank">Choosing Life in Israel</a>, published this year by Freedom Press International. The book is about David’s personal choice to leave his native United States and live in Israel, and about Israel’s choice to affirm life and thrive in the face of challenges.</p>
<p><b>FP:</b> David, welcome to Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p>You’ve been living in Israel for almost thirty years. Why this book now?</p>
<p><b>Hornik: </b>Living in Israel for almost thirty years, but writing intensively about it for some ten years. I looked back over what I’d written, and saw that it formed a narrative of Israel’s emergence from the very dark days of the Second Intifada, brought on by Israel’s own delusions and errors, to a regained strength and realism—and a much more normal life for its citizens with far fewer terror attacks. I structured the book in that way. Its short Part 1 offers essays in a personal vein to give a flavor of my life here. The much longer Part 2 traces Israel’s progress from those painful days to brighter ones, though there are still dangers. I’m told it’s a gripping read.</p>
<p><b>FP:</b> How do you feel at this point about leaving the U.S. for Israel? How has living in Israel changed you? How has Israel changed?</p>
<p><b>Hornik: </b>It’s been for me a great experience of discovery, growth, and adventure,<b> </b>and of expressing—of living—what I consider my true national identity. I was a fiction writer when I made the move to Israel, and remained one for a while, but for now that’s fallen by the wayside; Israel itself became the subject matter, a hugely intense and colorful subject matter. Israel, since I came here in 1984, has changed to a much more free-market rather than socialist economy (though there is still a way to go), and you can see the results in the huge Israeli creativity and innovation in high tech, science, defense, communication, medicine, and so many fields. Israel is booming.</p>
<p><b>FP:</b> The last few years have seen changes and upheavals in Israel’s immediate neighborhood, particularly in Egypt and Syria but also affecting Lebanon and Jordan, while the crisis of Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons continues. What are Israel’s prospects as it faces this turbulent Middle East?</p>
<p><b>Hornik: </b>The overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt is a positive development and offers hope. At present the Egyptian military regime is, with Israel’s approval, cracking down on terror groups in Sinai and even on Hamas. That doesn’t mean this regime consists of, as we say in Israel, Lovers of Zion, but we can hope for a continued pragmatic, nonbelligerent moderation toward Israel. In Syria both sides are very unsympathetic; Hizballah is tied down and, at present, weakened, and that’s also a positive development. So far Israel is staying vigilant and succeeding, impressively, to keep the dangers of that conflict from reaching us. The Iranian nuclear situation is grave and always getting worse. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very aware of it and serious about it. I think that—provided that problem is solved—our prospects are bright. It won’t be a picnic here, but we have greater morale, unity, and capabilities than the other side.</p>
<p><b>FP:</b> Can you talk a bit about the lies about Israel’s guilt and Palestinian innocence?</p>
<p><b>Hornik: </b>Israel accepted the 1947 UN partition plan, created the Palestinian Authority in 1993, and in 2000, 2001, and 2008 made <i>dangerously</i> generous offers of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians have reacted by refusing to put an end to the conflict and continuing—both in Gaza and the West Bank—to cultivate a glorification of terrorism and a delegitimization and hatred of Israel. I don’t see this as so much a “Palestinian” phenomenon, but rather as part of a larger Arab and Muslim one—perhaps an intense version of it. If someone can’t see the difference between Israel’s democratic, peace-loving culture and the deeply problematic, supremacist Arab-Muslim culture of which the Palestinians are part, they’re either ignorant or lack courage or integrity.</p>
<p><b>FP: </b>Why the heartless silence in the Western media and within the supposed “humanitarian” Left<b> </b>in regards to the dead and maimed children in Sderot?<b> </b></p>
<p><b>Hornik: </b>Fortunately the Gaza rockets have mostly stopped for the time being and near-normal life has returned to Sderot. For years it was a town under vicious, ongoing bombardment by Hamas and other terror groups. If the numbers of dead and injured were relatively small, thousands of children (and smaller, but considerable) numbers of adults were living at all times with severe anxiety symptoms. This did not interest the Left because, for that ideological persuasion, Israel—if it ever had it—had long ago lost its victim status by winning the 1967 war. The Palestinians as a “Third World” people made much more attractive ostensible victims for the Left. That the residents of Sderot are generally low-income, what used to be called “working-class” people made no difference; it did not help their case. The international Left with its BDS movement, Israel Apartheid Weeks, and Free Gaza flotillas does not care how many rockets crash into the homes of children in Sderot.</p>
<p><b>FP:</b> Yet another diplomatic effort to reach Israeli-Palestinian “peace” is under way. Your thoughts?</p>
<p><b>Hornik: </b>The latest word is that it was devised by John Kerry, with Barack Obama’s backing, to ward off a crisis of the Palestinians turning to UN bodies to obtain statehood unilaterally, to which Israel would have retaliated by using its financial leverage over the Palestinian Authority, and possibly in other ways. Seemingly the Obama administration, which also has financial, diplomatic, and political clout vis-à-vis the PA, could have used that clout to dissuade the PA from taking such steps, and also used its status as a superpower to dissuade international bodies from responding positively to the PA’s overtures. Instead Washington has gone for another “peace process” that is doomed to fail and is already exacting a price in soon-to-be-freed terrorists. Some in Israel think that if this “process” calms the Palestinian arena for the time being, and lets Israel concentrate on strategic issues, possibly with greater U.S. backing, it can be for the good. Time will tell if they’re right.</p>
<p><b>FP: </b>How do you explain the survival of the Israelis against all odds?</p>
<p><b>Hornik: </b>Tremendous will, toughness, talent, faith, and the imperative to “choose life.”</p>
<p><b>FP:</b> David, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p>We highly recommend <em>Choosing Life in Israel</em> to all of our readers! <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Choosing-Life-Israel-David-Hornik/dp/0988169193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375073793&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=choosing+life+in+israel+david+hornik" target="_blank">BUY IT!</a></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <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">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/choosing-life-in-israel-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Face of the Brotherhood Enemy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-face-of-the-brotherhood-enemy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-face-of-the-brotherhood-enemy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-face-of-the-brotherhood-enemy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 04:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erick Stakelbeck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199429</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Erick Stakelbeck exposes the Muslim Brotherhood threat.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/brotherhood.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-199430" alt="brotherhood" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/brotherhood-231x350.jpg" width="231" height="350" /></a>For over a hundred years, European and American cities were dotted with cells of left-wing radicals, Socialist and Communist groups who infiltrated more mainstream organizations, assassinated public officials, organized violent protests and detonated bombs in public places.</p>
<p>It was the fear of this churning red enemy that Karl Marx described in the opening of the Communist Manifesto as the specter of Communism haunting Europe.</p>
<p>The red cause has since gone mainstream and its bomb-throwers have become the establishment. The old radicals are parliamentarians and ministers, they head up NGOs and oversee newsrooms. They no longer haunt Europe; instead they rule Europe.</p>
<p>Today a new specter haunts Europe. Unlike the specter of Communism, it isn’t much spoken of and when it is mentioned, it is reduced to vague descriptions that fail to describe, like “Violent Extremism” and “Islamic Radicalism”, implying that the problem is a handful of men in a basement somewhere.</p>
<p>The new Islamic threat is no more reducible to the occasional terrorist cell than the Communist threat could be reduced to the handful of radicals who were willing to set off bombs. The green ghost of Islam haunting European and American cities is at least as deadly as the old red ghost of Communism.</p>
<p>Among the panoply of shades and specters haunting Berlin, Paris, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto and countless others, looms the Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>This new specter is the topic of Erick Stakelbeck’s book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1621570339"><i>The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy</i></a>. This book is no mere collection of dry research; instead Erick Stakelbeck delivers a punchy narrative that travels urgently with him at a breakneck pace as he confronts Muslim Brotherhood figures like Tariq Ramadan, traveling to Europe on ghost-busting expeditions to confront the specters in the Western houses that they have taken to haunting.</p>
<p>In vividly retold prose, Stakelbeck intersperses his pungent interviews with Brotherhood bigwigs with background on their activities and the range and breadth of the Muslim Brotherhood network. Like the Communists, the Islamists build up entire networks of front organizations to expand their influence, recruit new followers and funnel money into their operations. It’s a complicated web of deceit that security officials know about, but politicians refuse to deal with because the influence of the front groups has gone too high up the ladder of politics.</p>
<p>The Muslim Brotherhood has become so successful so quickly that many people who hear about the number of its front groups and the pervasiveness of its political influences dismiss them as an implausible conspiracy theory. The Brotherhood, like the Communists before it, is shielded by the seeming improbability of its penetrations, the magnitude of its deceptions and the inconceivable gullibility of its useful idiots.</p>
<p><i>The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy</i> is an excellent antidote to such an attitude. It’s a book with a personal touch that comprehensively covers the Brotherhood, but tells much of the tale in terms of personal encounters that read like a spy novel, making it an ideal tool for convincing even low-information voters of the true nature of the threat.</p>
<p>From insights into the Obama administration’s obscene embrace of the Brotherhood to meetings with the smooth and sophisticated spokesmen for the Brotherhood’s Western origins in Europe, Stakelbeck tracks down facts and personalities, exposes the violent truth behind the appeaser’s lie of a peaceful political Islam that represses women and non-Muslims with a benevolent smile on its saturnine face.</p>
<p>As the Obama administration sticks to its policy of aiding Muslim Brotherhood takeovers in the Middle East, using political Islamist governments as a supposed bulwark against Al Qaeda Islamic terrorism, <i>The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy</i> reminds us that Al Qaeda would not exist without the Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>Every Al Qaeda leader was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the organization has its roots in the Brotherhood’s own Egypt. Stakelbeck argues that the September 11 attacks would never have occurred without the existence of the Brotherhood and convincingly shows that the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology acts as a “gateway drug” to more explicit forms of Islamic terrorism.</p>
<p>This is a phenomenon that we can see even among American front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood; like the Muslim Students Association <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/ohio-state-students-mobilize-against-freedom-center-ad/">whose presidents have an unfortunate habit</a> of becoming Al Qaeda terrorists. There would be no explanation for such a startling correlation were it not for the fact that the Brotherhood and its front groups are indeed “gateway drugs” for Islamic terrorism.</p>
<p>Gateway drug might well be an apt description of the Muslim Brotherhood which exists in layers. The deeper one goes into the green Islamist onion, the sharper and more violent the ideology becomes. Its power lies in deception and it is that deception which Stakelbeck tackles admirably in <i>The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy.</i></p>
<p>A decade ago such a description might have seemed absurd. Even after September 11, when the front groups of the Muslim Brotherhood gained immense power and influence by positioning themselves as the moderate Muslim gatekeepers who could keep Muslim terror in check in return for political power and influence, it might have seemed ridiculous.</p>
<p>And then with the Arab Spring, the political checks written by Western leaders to the Muslim Brotherhood were cashed in a big way as Middle Eastern governments fell and the Brotherhood and its allies took over entire nations. Now as NATO nations are readying to arm the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, backing its bid to take over yet another country, it would appear that the green specter of Islam has made more progress in a shorter time than the red specter of Communism.</p>
<p>In the face of complacency and collaboration by Western politicians, Erick Stakelbeck delivers a necessary shock to the system with a blunt, open and unsparing look at the Brotherhood’s power and influence, at its cynical operatives, its ruthless goals and the scope of its plans for the free world.</p>
<p>The great tragedies of the twentieth century occurred because of the long delay in recognizing the terrible menace of the rising evils of Nazism and Communism. The Muslim Brotherhood may emerge as their historical counterpart if the free men and women of the twenty-first century do not wake up to the next great enemy whose soldiers already walk our soil and whose leaders give orders in Washington D.C., London and Berlin.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <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">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/the-face-of-the-brotherhood-enemy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hating Jews: A Global Study</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/hating-jews-a-global-study/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hating-jews-a-global-study</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/hating-jews-a-global-study/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 04:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Bawer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alvin H. Rosenfeld]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zionist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=198810</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new book examines anti-Semitism worldwide.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/alvin.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-198815" alt="alvin" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/alvin.jpg" width="230" height="332" /></a>“The study of antisemitism,” admits Bruno Chaouat, a professor of French in Minnesota, “can be tedious.” This admirably candid confession appears relatively early in the pages of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Resurgent-Antisemitism-Global-Perspectives-Studies/dp/0253008786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375032801&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=resurgent+antisemitism">Resurgent Antisemitism</a><i>: Global Perspectives, </i>a collection of nineteen new essays edited by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, the distinguished director of Indiana University&#8217;s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and author of several major books about the Holocaust. Chaouat is right, of course: while a single anecdote about irrational hate can breed sorrow, anger, and/or shock, a thick book consisting entirely of such material is more likely to be, quite simply, numbing. It is Rosenfeld&#8217;s accomplishment to have assembled a volume that, rather than seeming to repeat the same points over and over again, feels consistently fresh as it moves from region to region, approaches its topic from one angle after another, and serves up new historical information and cultural insights at every turn.</p>
<p>Most of the essays illuminate the current situation for Jews in a specific corner of the world: Alejandro Baer sums up antisemitism in today&#8217;s Spain; Zvi Gitelman does the same for the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe; Szilvia Peremiczky focuses on Hungary and Romania; Rifat N. Bali, on Turkey. And Paul Bogdanor proffers an account of antisemitism in modern Britain, as expressed in a thoroughly ugly-sounding play, “Seven Jewish Children,” by Caryl Churchill, and an equally horrid little poem about “the Zionist SS,” written by the well-known poet (and Oxford professor) Tom Paulin and published a few months before 9/11 in <i>The Observer. </i></p>
<p>Anna Sommer Schneider, for her part, takes on Poland, noting that while Pope John Paul II was vividly aware of Polish antisemitism and addressed it publicly on many occasions, other church leaders have not been so sensitive to the problem, the result of which is that the years since his papacy have yielded first-class examples of ecclesiastical Jew-hatred. Schneider quotes the observation of one Polish priest that “the Jews are not needed to perpetuate antisemitism. A sick Christianity is sufficient. And Polish Christinaity – and more precisely, what dominates in Polish Catholicism – is sick and infected with anti-Judaism.” Schneider also cites a Polish archbishop&#8217;s explanation of the affliction, rife in his country, known as “the antagonism of suffering”: while both Jews and Catholics in Poland were victims of the Nazis, he explains, the Jews were of course the greater victims; yet Polish Catholics are offended when they feel that <i>their</i> victimization is being overshadowed by that of the Jews, and the consequences of this feeling of offense are, shall we say, not always salutary.</p>
<p>I was especially taken by Eirik Eiglad&#8217;s essay on antisemitism in Norway, not just because I live in the land of the fjords but because Eiglad does a splendid job of elucidating just how a nation with so few Jews came to be infected with such a virulent strain of Jew-hatred in the years after World War II. It all began, he tells us, when Maoists acquired a “disproportionate influence” on Norwegian society in the 1960s. A significant part of their hideous contribution to postwar Norwegian thought, alas, was a fierce enmity toward Jews and the Jewish state. For these Norwegian Maoists, writes Eiglad, “Palestine was the new Vietnam, and the Israeli state was&#8230;a lackey for U.S. imperialism” – its objective, in the words of one of them, being “to conquer land for &#8216;European culture.&#8217;” The views on Israel and Palestine that, a half century ago, were held by virtually no one in Norway <i>except</i> for its small cadre of Maoists are now a key component of the cultural elite&#8217;s orthodoxy in that country, where, Eiglad notes, “explicit calls for the destruction of Israel are accepted as &#8216;criticisms of Israeli policies,&#8217; and anti-Zionist hatred is discreetly tolerated as legitimate frustration over alleged acts of Israeli inhumanity.”</p>
<p>The one criticism I might make of Eiglad&#8217;s piece is that, even though he does make the important point that many of those former Norwegian Maoists are now Muslims, he doesn&#8217;t place sufficient emphasis on the way in which Islam factors into antisemitism in today&#8217;s Norway. Still, his relative inattention to this subject is nothing alongside the approach of Gunther Jikeli, who in an essay entitled “Antisemitism among Young European Muslims,” makes the mindboggling statement that “issues such as terrorism plots by young European Muslims, public approval of the Shari&#8217;a, clashes in reaction to cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad, public discussions about Muslim women wearing a veil or about outlawing the burkha, forced marriages, and &#8216;honor killings&#8217; mostly concern a minority of Muslims and do not lead to a general alienation of Muslims from mainstream society.” Jikeli, author of a book (in German) on the topic of his essay, insists that the <i>real </i>problems involving Europe&#8217;s Muslim communities are anti-Muslim “discrimination,” “racism,” “xenophobia,” and “negative stereotypes.” As if this weren&#8217;t baffling enough, Jikeli, after supplying a quick overview of European Muslim attitudes toward Jews as expressed in man-in-the-street interviews, concludes that the interviewees&#8217; overwhelmingly hostile attitudes “are fragmented and multifaceted” and “can neither be reduced solely to hatred of Israel nor to references to Islam or Muslim identity.” For Jikeli, apparently, the fact that not all of those surveyed explicitly mentioned Allah, Muhammed, or the Koran while raging violently against Jews and Israel is reason enough to question the religious roots of their hatred.</p>
<p>Then there&#8217;s Matthias Küntzel, who, writing about antisemitism in the Middle East, quite properly rejects the argument, advanced by many, that that antisemitism is the result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – but also embraces the ridiculous claim that there wasn&#8217;t any appreciable level of anti-Semitism among Muslims in the Middle East before they were touched by the influence of Hitler. In other words, “the roots of Arab antisemitism” lie in Nazism – not in the Koran. (Küntzel, it should be noted, is the author of a 2007 book entitled <i>Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11 – </i>which Andrew Bostom, writing at this website shortly after its publication, <a href="http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29031">criticized</a> at length for absurdly underemphasizing the Koranic origins of both jihad and Islamic Jew-hatred.) Another view of the Islamic world is provided by Jamsheed K. Choksy, who, in an essay on Iran, recalls that 2500 years ago, Cyrus the Great practiced “civility” toward Jews, and that during World War II the Pahlavi dynasty, resisting Nazi pressure, made clear that it regarded Iranian Jews as full and equal citizens of the kingdom. Indeed, Choksy points out, “Iran even became a transit point for approximately 2,000 Jews escaping Europe,” and retained “vibrant” ties with Israel right up until Khomeini&#8217;s revolution – all of which makes Choksy hopeful for Muslim-Jewish relations in a post-sharia Iran.</p>
<p>Less encouraging is the essay by Tel Aviv University&#8217;s Ilan Avisar, who, pondering the especially depressing topic of Israeli antisemitism, declares: “Anti-Zionist argumentation has become a major phenomenon in Israeli intellectual life.” Emanuele Ottolenghi, who also probes Jewish antisemitism, is particularly interested in the history of the self-hating Jew, a type exemplified by “Jewish converts, like Pablo Cristiani, who led the medieval trials against the Talmud, and Alfonso de Valladolid, who wrote ferocious anti-Jewish polemics in the fourteenth century.” Dina Porat explores Holocaust denial; Tammi Rossman-Benjamin examines the way in which victim-group studies at U.S. colleges have intensified antisemitism on campus; and then there&#8217;s Chaouat&#8217;s piece, in which, among much else, he tells us about a colleague at the University of Minnesota who ranted at a faculty party that Caouat&#8217;s department, with a total of two Jewish professors out of twelve, was a “Jewish enclave” with a “Jewish agenda,” and so forth. “What we have here,” Chaouat observes, is “a textbook case: postcolonial, anti-Israeli ideology directly inspired by Edward Said, coupled with a traditional antisemitism.” Welcome to the American academy, A.D. 2013.</p>
<p>One of this collection&#8217;s most eminent contributors is Robert S. Wistrich, who heads up the antisemitism center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has written several books on the subject. Here, in addition to outlining the role of the USSR in turning the UN against Israel and in shaping its post-1967 image “as a racist, Nazi state,” Wistrich explains how Soviet rhetoric about Israel was picked up “by Arab intellectuals, nationalists, Islamists, and Marxists” – and, reaching across the Atlantic (as these essays otherwise seldom do), how antisemitism in Venezuela surged under the Hugo Chávez regime. Finally, Rosenfeld himself winds up the anthology with an essay asking, apropos of antisemitism around the world today: “<i>How bad is it likely to get?” </i>The pages that follow, in which he ticks off gloomy predictions by one respected observer of current events after another, are sobering indeed. (Here&#8217;s Ron Rosenbaum in 2004: “The second Holocaust. It&#8217;s a phrase we may have to begin thinking about. A possibility we may have to contemplate. A reality we may have to witness.”)</p>
<p>This is a serious book – an important book. Yet it is also a book, alas, in which several of the contributors seem to shy away from spelling out the role of Islamic theology itself – of, most fundamentally, the actual contents of the Koran – in Islamic antisemitism. Yes, the Nazi-Muslim connections are important; but the reason why Nazi attitudes toward Jews took root so swiftly in the dry sand of the Muslim world, and flowered so lushly, is that they differed very little, in substance, from attitudes that are articulated repeatedly throughout Islam&#8217;s holiest of books. I can understand, to be sure, why authors on the subject of Jew-hatred might want to take extra pains to avoid saying anything that might expose them to charges of Muslim-hatred; but let&#8217;s face it, those charges will be leveled anyway. What matters is the truth: and the truth is that Islam, from its very beginnings, has demonized Jews, and that this demonization is not a peripheral but a central element of the Muslim faith. Unless and until we recognize this fact, and address it head-on, we will not get very far at all in our effort to challenge the toxic Jew-hatred that is on the rise everywhere on the planet where the followers of Muhammed make their homes.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <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">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/hating-jews-a-global-study/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Choosing Life in Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/choosing-life-in-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=choosing-life-in-israel</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/choosing-life-in-israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2013 04:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Janice Fiamengo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Choosing Life in Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hornik]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Testament]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=197614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ David Hornik’s new book a must-read for anyone who cares about Israel.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&amp;field-keywords=choosing+life+in+israel+david+hornik"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-197639" alt="life" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/life-450x275.jpg" width="315" height="193" /><i>Choosing Life in Israel</i></a>, published by Freedom Press International, is a collection of essays spanning the years 2004 to 2012 by the Israeli journalist David Hornik, now a regular columnist for <i>Frontpage Magazine</i> and <i>PJ Media</i>. The title neatly suggests the book’s two main points of emphasis, the first concerning how an American made the choice to live in Israel and how he was changed by the decision; the second having to do with what life in Israel is like and how it differs from life anywhere else in the world. A third point, more lightly touched upon but in a sense underpinning the whole of the book, relates to the people of Israel as God’s chosen ones, instructed by Him to “Choose life”—which they have done, abundantly, in the face of the world’s hatred. The volume is a skillful blend of political and personal reportage, beautifully and informatively written, and a must-read for anyone who cares about this beleaguered, valiant country.</p>
<p>The shorter first section of the book tells how as a young man, Hornik put aside his dream of writing poetry and short stories in upstate New York to join a people under siege and to make their struggle his own. He had felt an affinity for Israel and its plucky citizens from the time when, as a secular Jewish child of about six, he had been moved by the “brash, in-your-face élan” of a record of Israeli music given him by his father. Later, as an adult, Hornik found it impossible to read continually of the international betrayal of “his” people without throwing in his lot with theirs. Coming to Israel meant learning a new language, imbibing the vibrancy of Jewish religious life, adjusting to the reality of rocket attacks and suicide bombings, and surrendering his dedication to poetic “emotion recollected in tranquility” in order to engage in journalism of “political and moral urgencies.”  His love for his adopted country—for its joyousness and decency despite the “ambiance of terror” within which Israelis must live—and his sense of being “incorrigibly engaged with the world” provide the compelling keynotes of the collection.</p>
<p>The longer second section is primarily composed of political commentary, much of it inspired by immediate events, including Israeli military actions, terrorist atrocities, and international diplomatic visits.  The subjects that recur, presented from various angles and tones of voice ranging from the outraged to the resigned, include the failure of Israeli leaders to attain security for their citizens through realistic assessment of military necessity, the rise once more of Jew hatred across the world, and the extraordinary resilience of Israel despite such challenges. Hornik is particularly astute in his analysis of the Palestinian victim narrative and its many ardent sympathizers—the chorus of supplicants, appeasers, accommodationists, and utopians whose hope never wavers, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the Palestinians’ repeatedly expressed determination to wipe Israel from the map is merely a strategic or rhetorical expression.</p>
<p>Hornik’s discussion of the suicidal political calculations and denial mechanisms involved in such false hope is always compelling and cogent. I was particularly impressed by his definition of the obscene “death credit system” under which Israel has had to operate and which no other nation has ever been expected to endure: according to this system, “Israel absorbs blows, letting its citizens be picked off and murdered, until a particularly large and grisly attack gives it enough death credits that it believes the world … will tolerate its taking military action.” Even then, of course, it is subject to repeated, sometimes hysterical, criticism. Hornik is brilliant in showcasing, in nauseating detail, the vast disproportion in the international response to military action by Israel and to terror attacks by the Palestinians; no moral distinction is made between “oppressive” Israeli checkpoints and the deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians. Dead children in Sderot elicit “no cachet and romance … no ‘Save Sderot’ marches on campus, not a whiff of censure.” Hornik’s analysis of western elites’ obsession with Palestinian grievance—while “twenty years of genocide in Sudan may be quite tolerable [and] oppression in Tibet not even detectable”—is powerfully presented throughout.</p>
<p>Hornik’s writing has a pithy force that stems from the precise, understated attention he pays to these unsettling subjects: the lies told in the mainstream media about Palestinian innocence and Israeli belligerence, the moral double-standard to which Israel is held and to which many of its own politicians, intellectuals, and activists insist it hold itself, and the evident attraction of many intellectuals to terror and barbarism. Covering such matters as Yasser Arafat’s funeral, Columbia University’s disastrous hosting of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the much-revisited peace process, Hornik focuses on the ironies and hypocrisies that might defeat a less patient writer. Showcasing the reality behind the obfuscations of pundits and political rulers, he reveals a country, in his apt wording, “confronted more starkly than others with life and death, and making its choice.”</p>
<p>Individually, then, these articles offer perceptive, compulsively readable glimpses into Israeli life and politics. As a collection, however, this book is even more than the sum of its parts.  <i>Choosing Life in Israel</i> chronicles  the ongoing drama at the heart of Israel as month after month, year after year, the tiny country faces the barrage of rockets, calumny, and lies—and not only endures but thrives. The book is a testament to one writer’s determination to tell the truth and to keep on telling it; and to the against-the-odds triumph of an indomitable people.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <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">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/choosing-life-in-israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Real Face of Gun Violence &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang-1/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:57:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Glazov]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Glazov Gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dear Father]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dear Son]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[father]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glazov gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Larry Elder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memoir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don’t miss this special episode of The Glazov Gang in which Larry Elder, a New York Times best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, and Dwight Schultz, a Hollywood actor who played Murdock on NBC’s The-A-Team, discuss The Real Face of Gun Violence in America. The discussion was founded on Larry&#8217;s new riveting [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang/gun-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-177818"><img class=" wp-image-177818 alignleft" title="gun" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun-450x303.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="212" /></a>Don’t miss this special episode of <em>The Glazov Gang</em> in which <strong>Larry Elder</strong>, a New York Times best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, and <strong>Dwight Schultz</strong>, a Hollywood actor who played Murdock on NBC’s <em>The-A-Team, </em>discuss <em>The Real Face of Gun Violence in America</em>. The discussion was founded on Larry&#8217;s new riveting memoir, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Father-Son-Lives-Eight/dp/1936488450">Dear Father, Dear Son: Two Lives…Eight Hours.</a> [To read Larry Elder&#8217;s Frontpage interview about Dear Father, Dear Son, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours/">click here</a>.]</p>
<p><strong>Watch both segments of the two-part <em>Glazov Gang</em> series below:</strong></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zmw0Y-GEY34" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/usksdRsXG5o" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>You can make sure that </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong><em>Jamie Glazov Productions</em></strong></a><strong> continues to take you where no other media programs dare to go. Help us by </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong>clicking here</strong></a><strong> and making a tax deductible contribution today. To see the archives of <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, </strong><a href="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUqCK5RFjwgmx2z4sOjqd-kQ&amp;feature=plcp"><strong>click here.</strong></a><strong></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Real Face of Gun Violence &#8212; on The Glazov Gang</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dear Father]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dear Son]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[father]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glazov gang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Larry Elder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memoir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=177027</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Larry Elder and Dwight Schultz discuss Larry's new memoir that unveils the #1 social problem in America.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang/gun-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-177818"><img class=" wp-image-177818 alignleft" title="gun" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun-450x303.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="212" /></a>Don’t miss this special episode of <em>The Glazov Gang</em> in which <strong>Larry Elder</strong>, a New York Times best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, and <strong>Dwight Schultz</strong>, a Hollywood actor who played Murdock on NBC’s <em>The-A-Team, </em>discuss <em>The Real Face of Gun Violence in America</em>. The discussion was founded on Larry&#8217;s new riveting memoir, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Father-Son-Lives-Eight/dp/1936488450">Dear Father, Dear Son: Two Lives…Eight Hours.</a> [To read Larry Elder&#8217;s Frontpage interview about Dear Father, Dear Son, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours/">click here</a>.]</p>
<p><strong>Watch both segments of the two-part <em>Glazov Gang</em> series below:</strong></p>
<p><strong>Part I:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zmw0Y-GEY34" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Part II:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/usksdRsXG5o" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>You can make sure that </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong><em>Jamie Glazov Productions</em></strong></a><strong> continues to take you where no other media programs dare to go. Help us by </strong><a href="https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=ASY2NUM6OSJ9" target="_blank"><strong>clicking here</strong></a><strong> and making a tax deductible contribution today. To see the archives of <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, </strong><a href="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUqCK5RFjwgmx2z4sOjqd-kQ&amp;feature=plcp"><strong>click here.</strong></a><strong></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/dear-father-dear-son-two-lives-eight-hours-on-the-glazov-gang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/radicals-portraits-of-a-destructive-passion-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=radicals-portraits-of-a-destructive-passion-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/radicals-portraits-of-a-destructive-passion-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 04:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Horowitz talks about his new book with Patrick O’Heffernan]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/radicals-portraits-of-a-destructive-passion-2/rad-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-175019"><img class="size-full wp-image-175019 alignleft" title="rad" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/rad.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></a><strong>To order David Horowitz’s new book, Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/bookstore/">click here</a>.<br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong>Below is an edited transcript of David Horowitz’s appearance on <em>Fairness Radio with Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan</em> on BlogTalkRadio on January 24, 2013, Thursday, 11 AM:</strong></p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  I&#8217;m Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan, your host on <em>Fairness Radio with Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan</em>, and again, I want to welcome our radio listeners on 1490 WWPR in Tampa Bay and KSKQ-FM in Ashland, Oregon, and I want to remind everybody that they can be part of the program &#8212; 424-675-6806, or you can e-mail us at FairnessRadio@Gmail.com.</p>
<p>Well, we often have conservative thinkers and writers on this program, and sometimes I just sort of grit my teeth and bear the books in the conversations as respectfully as I can, and sometimes I actually agree with some of their points.  But I think often that my time could be spent better on issues that need attention.</p>
<p>However, I recently sat down with David Horowitz&#8217;s new book<em>, Radicals: Portraits of Destructive Passions</em>, and I was mesmerized.  This book chronicles the lives of a handful of people who founded the New Left, mostly in the San Francisco area.  David was one of those people.</p>
<p>As editor of <em>Ramparts</em> magazine, he was one of, if not the, most respected and influential thinker and writer on the New Left.  David is now one of the most respected and influential writers of the conservative movement, and the time it took me to read this book was not only well spent, but it was a delight, beautifully written stories of people and times of the New Left and some in the present.  I put this book down with a new understanding of why David Horowitz is called &#8220;the most brilliant political mind in America today and also a national treasure,&#8221; and he&#8217;s with us today.</p>
<p>David, welcome back to Fairness Radio.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Thank you for that introduction.  I was thinking as you were giving it that if there were more progressives like you, my life would&#8217;ve been different.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  But maybe not better.  Who knows?</p>
<p>David, from its title, I expected kind of a harsh critique of some of the Left&#8217;s intellectual leaders, but instead, this is almost a memoir, a book filled with sadness and joy and even sometimes love as it critiques people and thinking.  Was your experience in writing this a memoir experience in any way?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> I&#8217;ve written several books like this.  One was my autobiography, <em>Radical Son</em>. There are some pages in that book which are somewhat polemical, but most of the book is an effort to understand the characters (including myself!). It is written from what I would call a novelist&#8217;s perspective.  A novelist has to have sympathy for his characters even when the characters are on the wrong side of whatever it is they are on the wrong side of.</p>
<p>I used this voice and perspective also in <em>The End of Time</em> and <em>A Point in Time</em>. I wish I had been able to do more of this and wasn&#8217;t as engaged as I have been in political fire fights. A lot of people on the left have a greatly distorted image of me from those engagements.  Political battles leave a lot of blood on the floor, and a lot of scar tissue behind.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  Well, from reading the book, I could see that there was, but you&#8217;ve done a masterful job.  And I know that not all of the people have faded from the political scene &#8212; Cornel West, for instance &#8212; but many have, and before we talk about the individuals you write about, do you think that the New Left has passed from the scene, that there&#8217;s a new generation of leaders now who have no connection to the &#8217;60s?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong>  No, I actually don&#8217;t.  The left is a religious movement, seeking to change the world. Its mission is one of redemption, and its solaces are those of a church. Consequently, the Left is very conscious of its history and its traditions, and it really hasn&#8217;t turned its back on its past.  It hasn&#8217;t even turned its back on its Communist forebears.  Of course, it will condemn Stalin now and so forth, but even Khruschev did that. In Oliver Stone travesty on <em>Showtime</em>, there&#8217;s an attempt to resurrect Lenin as a put-upon and beleaguered progressive. There&#8217;s great continuity in the left. In fact, that&#8217;s one of the reasons that I left the left, because there was no willingness to break with a bad past.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  Interesting.  I guess we know different people. But I want to get back to the book.</p>
<p>The story of Susan Gordon Lydon is particularly poignant.  Now, you should know, I met Susan and Michael, but it was a surface meeting.  We spent an afternoon with a group of other people at my home in Marin.  Could you tell us about Susan and tell us, also, what the arc of her life symbolized to you and why you included it in this book?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong> Susan was a very bright woman. She went to Vassar, and got involved in the drug culture. She was a writer who did music reviews, but she married Michael Lydon, and Michael just had a bigger reputation and she had he was writing for <em>Newsweek </em>and other major publications. They both wrote for <em>Ramparts</em>.  And Bob Scheer, who was the editor then, kind of pushed Susan into the background.  Anyway, she wrote an article which Peter Collier, who is now a conservative like me assigned to her and gave its title:  “The Female Orgasm.” And, of course, in the &#8217;60s context, “The Female Orgasm”<em> </em>became a political statement.  Such were the times.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  It still is (inaudible &#8211; multiple speakers).</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong>  It became a very famous article.  The chapter in my book starts off with the obituaries for Susan, who eventually died of the consequences of her drug abuse.  From the obituaries you might conclude she was world famous.  Even her fame was based on one small article, which wasn&#8217;t an original article, and was put in the back of the book by the <em>Ramparts</em> editors at the time. It was a testament to its political correctness and hyped up political significance, rather than anything of merit in the article itself.</p>
<p>Susan went through a horrible drug period.  She was a heroin addict with all the personal debasement and degradation that that entails. Then she managed to come out of it, and had a second career as a knitter.  She wrote philosophical and practical books on knitting with Buddhist overtones.  She was a follower of Oscar Ichazo, a famous guru of the time.</p>
<p>My view of her story is that she was derailed by the political – by “the personal is political” idea of the time, the notion that your personal life should be governed by political precepts. In accordance with those precepts she liberated herself from her marriage to Michael. I say it was political because she was a member of a feminist group in Berkeley, where all the women did this and ended up destroying their marriages. I&#8217;m not saying that feminism is the only cause of a broken marriage, but in this case, it was pertinent.</p>
<p>I saw her as a victim of the political universe she inhabited and her life as a struggle to recover who she was, her authentic self, as opposed to the one that conformed to the political correctness of the hour.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  Do you see the arc of her life as having any parallels in the arc of the New Left?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong>  Well, I think there were a lot of people who suffered similar fates. The chapter in my book on Bettina Aptheker shows how extreme such an intermingling – destructive intermingling of the personal and political can be. This is a woman who has no solid knowledge of herself really but preens as a political guru and thinks that she has found the key that unifies the political and the personal.</p>
<p>She wrote a memoir which was the basis for my chapter. It is one of the contributions that feminism has made to leftist autobiography to actually put in the details of a human life. Usually, if you read Communist autobiographies or really any leftist autobiographies, they skip over the personal, and really never try to assess the relationship between the two realms in their lives. There is no introspection. Oddly, Christopher Hitchens, intelligent as he was, falls victim to this myopia.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  Yes, I was going to ask you to talk about that.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong>  &#8212; Christopher managed to write a 400 page memoir without mentioning the mother of his first two children. His second wife, Carol, is never properly introduced and barely referenced. Christopher never looks inside himself.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  David, since you brought up Christopher, I was going to ask you about the Christopher Hitchens &#8212; the Christopher Hitchens chapter is one of the, I think, the softest chapters that you wrote, although it has deep critique in it.  Why did you start the book with Christopher Hitchens?</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong>  It&#8217;s called “The Two Christophers.” As everybody listening to this show would know Christopher had some second thoughts about his Leftism.  He was an articulate and courageous supporter of the war against Saddam Hussein and his monster regime, which made him quite a few enemies on the Left. But Christopher remained a leftist to the end.</p>
<p>In my autobiography, <em>Radical Son</em>, I set myself the task of answering the question how could someone like me, someone who had been as committed to the left as I had, become a conservative? And there was Christopher, who had made some changes, but not all. So for me, looking at his life was a way of examining the whole idea of second thoughts. It was a way of looking at what being a member of the leftist church do to you intellectually and politically. And I think in Christopher’s case it led to intellectual and moral incoherence.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  David, we have to take a quick break, and when we come back, I have sort of a basic philosophical question for you, but don&#8217;t go away.  Stayed tuned.  You&#8217;re listening to <em>Fairness Radio with Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan</em>, and we&#8217;ll be right back with more of David Horowitz.</p>
<p><strong>Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan:</strong>  And we&#8217;re back.  This is Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan on <em>Fairness Radio with Patrick O&#8217;Heffernan</em>.  We&#8217;re talking with David Horowitz.  We&#8217;re talking about his new book, wonderful new book, called <em>Radicals:  Portraits of a Destructive Passion</em>, and it&#8217;s available everywhere.  You can get it online and in bookstores.  Go to Amazon.com.  That&#8217;s called <em>Radicals:  Portraits of a Destructive Passion.  </em></p>
<p>David, we only have about four minutes left, and I wanted to ask you about a statement that&#8217;s in your chapter six on “A Radical Machiavelli”:</p>
<p>&#8220;Conservative outlooks spring from observations about the past, and as a rule, therefore, are pragmatic.  Whatever first principles comprise such beliefs, they are or should be propositions that encapsulate the lessons of experience.  By contrast, progressive views are built on expectations about the future.  Progressive principles are based on ideas about a world that does not exist.  For Progressives, the future is not a maze of human uncertainties and unintended consequences but a moral choice.&#8221;  And you&#8217;ve written elsewhere that Progressives are constantly trying to change or improve upon a world that doesn&#8217;t exist.</p>
<p>I think, in general, you&#8217;re right.  I agree with that, but I draw some different conclusions from it.  I&#8217;d point out that it&#8217;s absolutely true that progressives are constantly trying to change America.  We&#8217;re trying to make it better, but I think we&#8217;re following our Founding Fathers, who set up this enterprise to form a more perfect union, and I agree with you that there are first principles that do need to be determined but also that drawing your experience from the past can also mean that you embed past mistakes and that if you&#8217;re not progressive, you don&#8217;t try to change them.</p>
<p>And I think that America is successful because we blend Conservatives and first principles and the progressive movement to constantly improve and form a more perfect union.  We shouldn&#8217;t criticize either one; we should try to bring them together.</p>
<p><strong>David Horowitz:</strong>  Well, this is a conversation I sure wish I&#8217;d been able to have over the years.  It&#8217;s the right conversation, and it&#8217;s too bad we have like whatever it is, three minutes, to do it. I would disagree with you about the Founders. The Founders were very conservative, and that&#8217;s why they created a system of government to frustrate the desires of people to change everything in a big way and in a hurry.  That&#8217;s why we have a system of checks and balances.  That&#8217;s why senators once were appointed. To insulate them from the popular will. Everything that the left hates about the Constitution was designed specifically by the framers to keep the left in check.</p>
<p>In the opening of the book I observe that the utopian aspiration to change the world is the chief source of the misery that human beings inflict on each other.  Certainly in the last 100 years, the horrific movements, genocidal movements of Nazism and Communism, were spearheaded by political missionaries, socialists attempting to defy everything that we know about human nature to make a “better world.” That&#8217;s why they killed so many people – to remake the world as it should be, ignoring what it is.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <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">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/radicals-portraits-of-a-destructive-passion-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>KinderGarden Of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/kindergarden-of-eden-how-the-modern-liberal-thinks/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=kindergarden-of-eden-how-the-modern-liberal-thinks</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/kindergarden-of-eden-how-the-modern-liberal-thinks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 04:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Glazov]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evan sayet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KinderGarden Of Eden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New book]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Author Evan Sayet explains why the leftist yearns to remain in a state of permanent infantilism. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/kindergarden-of-eden-how-the-modern-liberal-thinks/evan_sayet_book/" rel="attachment wp-att-175086"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-175086" title="Evan_Sayet_Book" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Evan_Sayet_Book.jpg" alt="" width="273" height="400" /></a>Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Evan Sayet, a writer and political commentator. After his liberal friends&#8217; response to 9/11, he went on a quest to figure out what he calls &#8220;The Modern Liberal&#8221; mindset. His popular talk to the Heritage Foundation on &#8220;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&amp;feature=player_embedded">How The Modern Liberal Thinks</a>&#8221; has received over 600,000 views on youtube, and is the basis for his new book, &#8220;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/KinderGarden-Of-Eden-Modern-Liberal/dp/1480010421">The KinderGarden Of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks And Why He&#8217;s Convinced That Ignorance Is Bliss</a>.&#8221; Visit his site at <a href="http://evansayet.com/">EvanSayet.com</a>.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Evan Sayet, welcome to Frontpage Interview.</p>
<p>Congrats on your new book.  It’s really great.  In fact, a friend of ours over at PJTV, <a href="http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&amp;mpid=56">Bill Whittle</a>, said the other day that it is “perhaps the most important book I’ve read in the past ten years.”</p>
<p><strong>Sayet: </strong>Thanks, Jamie!</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Let’s begin with what inspired you to write this book.</p>
<p><strong>Sayet:  </strong>It was time.  I had been presenting my understanding of how the Modern Liberal thinks – and why that thinking leads him to side invariably and, in fact, inevitably, with all that is evil, failed and wrong – through a variety of channels: lectures, articles and so on.  With the culture war reaching perhaps its ultimate battle, with then the possibility and now the reality of a second Obama administration, I recognized the need to better and further organize my thoughts and present them in a way that was more accessible to more people and that’s this book.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>You label yourself a<strong> </strong>9-13 Republican. Explain to our readers what you mean by that.</p>
<p><strong>Sayet: </strong>Prior to 9-11, I was your typical New York City-born, Liberal Jew.  My Liberalism wasn’t a thoughtful embrace of Left-wing ideology – in fact, very, very few people thoughtfully embrace this ideology.  It was more like what Andrew Breitbart called “The default factory setting” for people born into the time, place and culture into which I was born.</p>
<p>Back then I knew what all Modern Liberals know: Democrats are good and Republicans are evil; Democrats like peace and Republicans like war; Democrats like air and Republicans don’t breathe the air or something.  I don’t know.  This is why David Mamet calls them “brain-dead” Liberals, because there was no intellect behind my Liberalism, it just was.</p>
<p>But even as brain-dead Liberal, 9-11 didn’t surprise me.  Of course I didn’t know the date, and I didn’t know the targets and the carnage literally sickened me, but I knew just enough about the world to know that the same people who were massacring the Jews of Israel and people of other religions and cultures around the globe because they were the <em>closest </em>infidels would, when they could, come to massacre the <em>biggest </em>infidels – their so-called “Great Satan.”  What surprised me – and ultimately rocked my world – is what I metaphorically call “9-12.”  That’s the days and the weeks and the months and now the years <em>after </em>9-11 and the Liberals’ response to the attacks.  The idea that we <em>deserved </em>the attacks – that they were, in the words of Barack Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” Jeremiah Wright, “The chickens coming home to roost” – and that the way to prevent further attacks was to be <em>nicer </em>to the terrorists seemed to me to be nothing short of insane. Here we were, facing the most obvious case of good versus evil of my lifetime, and the people I thought were the good and the smart guys – the Liberals – were not only siding with the evil, but they were making the most obviously false and even hateful anti-American arguments in order to do so.</p>
<p>I had to understand why this was, and since then, I have I given it a great deal of thought.  And, Jamie, I have an expression: The first time you think is the last time you’re a Democrat.  Once I began to think about the issues, I saw that this pro-evil/anti-good paradigm was not only not an aberration, it was a constant.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Your main theme is that Modern Liberalism rejects both God and science and that the Modern Liberal scorns the intellectual process and worships at the altar of indiscriminateness. He takes the side of evil and dreams of regressing humanity back to Adam and Eve. Talk to us a bit about this interpretation of yours.</p>
<p><strong>Sayet:  </strong>Man, that’s a lot to address in a short answer.  The bottom line is that the Modern Liberal is convinced that it is beliefs – not what those beliefs are but any belief at all – that are not only evil, but the font of all war, poverty, crime and injustice.  They’re convinced that thinking is a hate crime – an act so heinous as to render one evil for simply engaging in it and an act that requires one to revile anyone who engages in it.  The notion behind this hatred for thinking is that anything a person believes is going to have been so tainted by his personal bigotries – bigotries we all possess as simply part of the human experience, bigotries based on such things as the color of our skin, the nation of our ancestry, our height, weight, sex and so on – that the only way <em>not </em>to be an evil bigot is to never think at all.</p>
<p>Not only does the Modern Liberal see faith and reason as hate crimes, but their product is and can only be, war, poverty, crime and injustice.  The notion here is that, if nobody believed in anything then there’d be nothing for people to disagree about.  If people didn’t disagree then surely they wouldn’t fight and, if they didn’t fight, then of course they’d never go to war. It only follows (at least as far as the Modern Liberal is concerned) that, without war there’d be no poverty, without poverty there’d be no crime and without crime there’d be no injustice.  Mankind would return to Eden (or its secular version, the wonderful world of the kindergarten playground) if only all efforts to use one’s intellect ended, every “child” was declared “special” (but none more special than any other) and all people equally rewarded with each “child” getting a cookie but no child getting two.</p>
<p>The problem with this, however, is that, since in the real world, the better <em>does </em>exist, the Modern Liberal needs to “prove” that its existence is unjust.  Otherwise the whole utopian scheme goes up in flames.  Thus, he must argue that anything and everything society recognizes as the good and right – and all of the things that prove themselves to be the better by succeeding – are really the products of injustice.  In other words, not only is the Modern Liberal bigoted, but his mindless prejudices are invariably against all that is good, right and successful.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>So to crystallize this point:<strong> </strong>In your book you stress that the Modern Liberal is “both morally and intellectually retarded at the level of the five-year old child.” Summarize for us why.</p>
<p><strong>Sayet: </strong>Jean-Jacques Rousseau – in many ways the Godfather of Modern Liberalism – argues in essence that the human being is born morally perfect and is only then corrupted by evil forces within society seeking to use him to advance their own self-serving agendas.  If this is true, then not only is the Modern Liberal’s utopia possible; it is easily achieved.  All the Modern Liberal would need to do is find some mechanism to retard the child’s moral and intellectual growth at a level <em>prior </em>to his being corrupted by society, and a morally perfect world would result.  That mechanism is to declare thinking to be a hate crime.  The result is millions and millions of people who believe, as the mega-selling book by Robert Fulghum declares, that <em>All I Ever Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten</em>.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>You use the example of<strong> </strong>Bruce Springsteen’s songs to illustrate your thesis. There is a certain demonization of hard work in his lyrics and you find this very indicative and meaningful. Tell us how and why.</p>
<p><strong>Sayet: </strong>Again, a lot to cover in a short interview.  Let’s give it a shot.  What is the worst moment in the small child’s life?  It’s that moment when one of his parents leans out the window and shouts “playtime’s over; come in and do your chores.”  That’s the way the Modern Liberal sees having a job.  Because the Right Thinker believes in the existence of the better, he sees having a job as a way to fulfill his life’s purpose.  He can make a better world by producing things and doing it well.  Because the Modern Liberal rejects the notion of the better, having a job is nothing other than unmitigated hardship, it is the one and only thing that prevents him from his life’s purpose –the purpose of the small child’s daily life having fun and doing whatever feels good.  If you listen to Springteen’s lyrics they are not mature thoughts about the role work plays in the grown-up’s life –a role that includes camaraderie, a sense of accomplishment and so on, they are the small child’s rantings – albeit in adult-sounding verbiage – about how horrible it is that the grown-up doesn’t get to spend all of his time playing.  There is simply not a single Springsteen song that I can easily think of – and I know my Springsteen – where someone with a job isn’t going through total and abject horror because he isn’t being allowed to play at the moment.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>I am a life-long Springsteen fan and I must say, yes you do know your Springsteen and you wrote quite a powerful and profound article on him and his music a little while back for Frontpage, &#8220;<a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/evan-sayet/the-promise-is-broken/">The Promise is Broken</a>.&#8221; I encourage all of our readers to read it.<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p>Let&#8217;s move forward. You show how John Lennon’s song &#8220;Imagine&#8221; serves as a perfect symbol of the Modern Liberal’s thinking. Share with our readers how you see this.</p>
<p><strong>Sayet:  </strong>The song “Imagine” is a near-perfect detailing of the Modern Liberal’s “Blueprint for Utopia.”  If no one engaged in thought about the better forms of governance – that’s what having “no countries” would do; and if no one gave any thought to what the better moral codes to live by are – that’s what having no religions would accomplish; and if everyone was equally rewarded no matter their behavior (like every child getting a cookie and no child getting two) then there would be no reason to seek out the better and rightful behaviors, then mankind would live in paradise without war, poverty, crime or injustice.  Note that, like the small child, one of the “benefits” of this paradise is that “all the people (are) living for today.”</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, then, the World Socialist Party writes on their website: Many members of the World Socialist Movement have considered John Lennon’s song Imagine an anthem of universal hope. In few other songs, and perhaps in no song that reached as wide an audience as that one, is the socialist vision so accurately and movingly conveyed.”</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>You refer to a whole bunch of Modern Liberals (Pelosi, Gates, Clooney) who “don’t do anything or make anything.” What do you mean by this and how does it fit into your argument?</p>
<p><strong>Sayet:</strong> What you’ll notice about the industries that dominate today’s Democratic Party is that the one thing they have in common is that they don’t make or produce anything tangible.  The entirety of both their product and their effort is nothing other than words.  Because they don’t do anything or make anything, there is no reason for them to seek out the better ways of doing things and making things.  The coin-of-the-realm to those in the Rhetoric Industries is to be <em>clever</em>; there is simply no need for them to be <em>right</em>.  As I write in the book, “The ‘clever’ but wrong fireman soon gets burned and, having been burned, learns a lesson or two.  The ‘clever’ but wrong academic, on the other hand, soon gets tenured and, having been rewarded, seeks only newer and more clever-sounding ways of repeating the same nonsense she’s believed from before she’d turned six and about which life has never given her reason to question.”  When Springsteen sings a song about being a policeman, he doesn’t need to know what he’s talking about because, two-minutes and twelve seconds later he’s no longer a policeman, he’s now pretending to be a factory worker.  The real policeman, on the other hand, might not be as <em>clever</em> as Springsteen but he has to be smarter.  When all you do is talk you don’t need to know what you’re talking about because, when you don’t do anything, nothing can go wrong.  This allows those who have gone from the paradise of childhood directly into careers in the Rhetoric Industries to spend their entire lives not knowing anything more than the small child save for possessing a bigger vocabulary.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>You point to five basic reasons leftists always go to rationalize why someone would disagree with them. (p.47) Share these with our readers and what it means.<strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Sayet:</strong> Since the Modern Liberal’s policy on any given issue is the one that he is led to by his rejection of moral and rational thought – his indiscriminateness – anyone who takes a different position on any issue is not only “wrong,” he is evil (or, in Thomas Sowell’s words, he is “not merely in error, but in sin.”) This is because the opposite of indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated: the hate crime of thinking.  One might discriminate because they’re 1) stupid 2) bigoted 3) phobic 4) evil or 5) greedy, but, no matter what, the Modern Liberal has no other explanation for disagreeing with him on an issue other than one of these five things.  Sound impossible?  Take a second and try to name a single issue – even one – where one of these things isn’t what the Modern Liberal says is the motive for not supporting <em>their </em>policy.  You can’t.  Not one.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>It all therefore makes sense that the Left would really have their hate focused on America and Israel, right? Expand on this a bit for us.</p>
<p><strong>Sayet: </strong>Hatred for Judeo-Christian America and the Jews of Israel is nothing less than <em>endemic </em>to Modern Liberalism.  Assuming one doesn’t deny that America is exceptionally strong and exceptionally prosperous, how is this to be explained?  There are only two possible explanations, either there is something exceptional about America’s culture that leads to this success or there isn’t anything special about America’s culture and therefore not only is this success unjust (why should America be prosperous and strong if she’s nothing special) but, given that America is the <em>strongest </em>and <em>most </em>prosperous nation in human history, the Modern Liberal <em>has no choice </em>but to believe America is the greatest injustice in all of human history.</p>
<p>Similarly, if no culture, religion, form of governance or anything else is better than any other, how is the Modern Liberal to explain the history of the Jews?  How is he to explain that the Jews are the longest surviving culture in all of human history?  That wherever they are – and, because of the Diaspora, they are all over the planet – so long as they are not being so horribly oppressed that there is simply no way for them to succeed, they tend to thrive?  How is the Modern Liberal to explain that – just as God said, by the way – that any nation that treats its Jews well does well while those nations (like those of the Islamic world, for example) that treats its Jews badly will fare badly?</p>
<p>And, of course, how is the Modern Liberal to explain the nearly miraculous success of the Jewish people of Modern Israel with their tiny population but their incredible contributions to everything from the arts to medicines and technologies?  There are only two possible explanations: either there <em>is </em>something exceptional about Judaism and these successes are the results of that or there <em>isn’t </em>anything special about Judaism and the success of the Jews is not only unjust, but given their unparalleled success throughout history, they must be an unparalleled injustice.  It’s not the evil of America or the Jewish people that sees the Modern Liberal single out these two nations for their enmity, it is the goodness, rightness and success of these nations because not only must the indiscriminate see success as unjust, but great success is proof positive of <em>great </em>injustice and unequalled success serves as all the proof the Modern Liberal needs to conclude that an unequalled injustice has taken place.  The Modern Liberal hates America and hates Israel not because they’re the worst but because they’re the best.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>You talk about the time Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off their set when Bill O’Reilly dared to say that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. The Left’s need to deny the truth about Islam is very inter-related with your thesis, right?</p>
<p><strong>Sayet:</strong> Well, it’s just the flip-side of their enmity for all that is good, right and successful.  If there’s nothing wrong with Islam – and the indiscriminate must start and end their “thinking” with the belief (or at least stated belief) that there’s nothing wrong with Islam for otherwise they would be engaging in discriminating thought, then how is one to explain the abject failures and the horrific actions of the Islamists?  The former can <em>only </em>be explained by declaring them to be “oppressed” (and since their failure is so deep and widespread that “oppression” must be horrific in scale) and their acts of terror and other atrocities must be explained away as having been “provoked,” thus the same actions any and all other cultures and religions would have taken if only they, too, were so horribly oppressed and victimized.</p>
<p>This, then, requires the Modern Liberal to invent horrors committed by the <em>victims </em>of Islam in order to “prove” that there’s nothing the matter with Islam.  I’m sure you’ll recall Ward Churchill, the chairman of the department at a major American university declaring in the wake of 9-11 that the victims deserved to be burned alive in their place of employment because every American is a “little Eichmann.”  Is every American <em>really </em>a miniature version of the architect of the Holocaust?  Of course not.  In fact, as with everything else the Modern Liberal believes (or says he believes), literally nothing could be further from the truth.  So why did this man offer up such horrible slanders against the newly massacred innocent?  Because he had to.  Because if the victims didn’t deserve it then the attacks of 9-11 would have been nothing other than wanton mass murder, making the perpetrators evil.  Since, to the indiscriminate, the terrorists can’t be evil, then they must portray their <em>victims </em>as evil.  In every case the Modern Liberal, in order to remain indiscriminate, must discriminate against the good, right and successful.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Final thoughts?</p>
<p><strong>Sayet:  </strong>Yeah, buy my book.  Tell your friends.</p>
<p><strong>FP: </strong>Evan Sayet, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. And we encourage all of our readers to get their hands on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/KinderGarden-Of-Eden-Modern-Liberal/dp/1480010421">The KinderGarden Of Eden.</a></p>
<p>Evan, congrats once again and we hope to see you again soon.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <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">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/kindergarden-of-eden-how-the-modern-liberal-thinks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1458/1562 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 11:25:10 by W3 Total Cache -->