Horowitz 2 bak

===

DEAD 5 25

STEPHEN MILLER BACHMANN

7 23 bak text wait 3x

---

RWW

05/20/2025

Kyle Mantyla

Michele Bachmann reveals that she gave current White House adviser Stephen Miller his first job in Congress, based on a recommendation from David Horowitz.

Jackson Lahmeyer says that Alexander Soros and Huma Abedin are "like Ahab and Jezebel in a modern-day equivalency."

Reacting to the news that former President Joe Biden has cancer, Cheryl Chumley declares that "the Democrat Party itself has become a cancer to American society."

After losing his job for throwing a Sieg Heil-like salute earlier this year, far-right priest Calvin Robinson was still invited to the White House in April.

Finally, Joel Webbon is urging right-wing Christian business owners to "crush their enemies" by refusing to hire non-Christians.

---

an 525

Many neocons are scathing critics of President Donald Trump, including The Bulwark's Bill Kristol — who endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020 and Kamala Harris four years later. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton served in Trump's administration but was fired and often attacks him on foreign policy.

But far-right firebrand David Horowitz, who was 86 when he passed away on April 29, went from being an outspoken neocon to a supporter of Trump and the MAGA movement.

Horowitz went through a lot of political changes along the way. During his youth, the native New Yorker was a Maoist — while others who became converts to neoconservatism were ex-Trotskyites (including Bill Kristol's late father Irving Kristol).

Ronald Radosh, a history professor at the City University of New York (CUNY), details Horowitz' complicated political journey in an article published by The Bulwark on May 8.

IFrame Content

"I met David in New York City in the early 1950s, when I was a 15-year-old communist and member of the Upper West Side branch of the Labor Youth League, the name at that time of the official youth organization of the American Communist Party," Radosh recalls. "At one meeting, David, age 13, came to our chapter in his position as the newly appointed youth editor of the Communist Party's daily newspaper, The Daily Worker."

But Horowitz later abandoned the far left and, according to Radosh, became an "in-your-face, uncompromising member of the far right-wing." And after Horowitz embraced Trump and the MAGA movement, Radosh recalls, there was considerable tension between him and the neocons he once embraced.

"As the George H.W. Bush and Clinton years gave way to the George W. Bush and Obama years," Radosh explains, "David's yearly meetings began to welcome only the most extreme of Republicans. Eventually, only those sworn to support Trump and the MAGA movement would participate. When Donald Trump first won the presidency in 2016, David welcomed and honored Steve Bannon, whom he regarded as a fellow warrior for freedom and to whom he gave his organization’s annual award for his role in getting Trump into the White House."

Radosh continues, "Neoconservatives whom David once regarded highly and honored were disinvited from his events and openly scorned and attacked, especially if they rejected Donald Trump. Bill Kristol, then a leading light of neoconservatism, the editor of the Weekly Standard, and an early critic of Trump, was attacked in a vicious fashion by David, who called Kristol 'a renegade Jew' in what at the time was emerging as a MAGA organ, Breitbart.com."

*Ronald Radosh's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

ref

DAVID HOROWITZ, THE FIREBRAND of the conservative movement, died on April 29 after a lengthy battle with cancer. He was once a dear friend of mine. As I consider the great influence he had on so many, I feel compelled to reflect on the meaning of his life and on the effect he had on the scores of people who crossed paths with him.

I met David in New York City in the early 1950s, when I was a 15-year-old Communist and member of the Upper West Side branch of the Labor Youth League, the name at that time of the official youth organization of the American Communist Party. At one meeting, David, age 13, came to our chapter in his position as the newly appointed youth editor of the Communist Party’s daily newspaper, The Daily Worker. He was from his own bailiwick in Sunnyside, an enclave in Queens, where lots of Communists and fellow travelers lived. The task was in vain; few if any volunteered to write for the paper, and the hope of creating a young people’s section never materialized. (I did, however, contribute an unsigned article about the model U.N. for high school students, which was held at the United Nations in the actual delegates’ section. As far as I know, my article was the only outcome of his recruitment effort.)

David and I were soon friends, and I went frequently to visit him at his home and attended the parties he held there with the other young comrades of the party’s youth movement. When it was time for college, I left for the University of Wisconsin in Madison, while he chose Columbia. Both David and I stayed politically active. After he graduated, David went to Berkeley to study American literature, while I stayed in Madison for graduate school in American history. Now as a member of the emerging New Left, I became an editor of the journal Studies on the Left, while David became editor and a founder of his own West Coast radical university publication, Root and Branch. There was one meeting to see if the two could be merged, but their emphasis was on cultural issues, while ours was broader in its scope.

During the 1960 presidential campaign, David put together the very first student demonstration against JFK in Berkeley, which prompted me to organize a similar one when Kennedy himself came to campaign in Madison. As his car passed, we ran to it and yelled, “Remember, senator, the only real issue is peace with Russia.” As David began to concentrate and oppose the beginnings of sending U.S. troops to Vietnam during JFK’s presidency, I emulated his actions and wrote the first editorial against a U.S. presence in Vietnam for the student newspaper, the Daily Cardinal. We were on campuses two thousand miles apart but we worked in tandem.

THERE WERE TWO VERY DIFFERENT personas to David. The first was a militant and uncompromising radical; the other a sensitive and brilliant writer who put aside politics and often wrote beautiful prose about the meaning of life.

Sol Stern—an old mutual friend of David’s and mine—wrote with me about this in an article published four years ago this week in the New Republic. In that lengthy assessment, we trace David’s political journey from “the radical leftist turned thoughtful conservative turned Trump propagandist.” He eventually became what he himself called “a bomb thrower,” i.e., an in-your-face uncompromising member of the far right-wing.

As an example of David’s more thoughtful persona, Stern and I quoted a paragraph that David wrote in 1993 for a magazine called Heterodoxy he had recently created with his friend Peter Collier. Here’s how David explained what being a newly proclaimed conservative meant to him:

Conservatism, then, is not an ideology in the sense that liberalism, or the various forms of radicalism are. It is not an “identity politics” whose primary concern is to situate its adherents in the camp of moral humanity and thus to confer on them the stamp of History’s approval. It does not have a party line. It is possible for conservatives to question virtually any position held by other conservatives including, evidently, the notion that they are conservatives at all, without risking excommunication, expulsion, or even a raised eyebrow.

It was a rational stance that David would abandon in a few years. When he created what is now called the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which publishes its daily website, Frontpagemag, he had evolved from being a thoughtful intellectual of a conservative persuasion to what the Center itself called a “battle tank, geared to fight a war,” which eventually aligned with Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, a development that met the criterion for David’s fondest dreams. Gone was his belief that a conservative could question anything; the war that had to be waged, as he saw it, demanded total obedience and commitment until victory against the left (a category which included anyone of a liberal or left-wing persuasion). The defeat of the left was necessary for America to regain its soul.

David’s organization hosted yearly retreats—“Restoration Weekends,” he called them—usually at top-of-the-line hotels, like the exclusive and ultra-expensive Breakers resort in West Palm Beach. The major conservative political and intellectual figures of the day would be invited to speak. Over the years, the lineup you could expect at these three-day getaways shifted hard right. Early on, David’s ecumenical guests included a broad spectrum of conservative figures, as well as avowed political liberals and leftists, whose presence reflected the perspective of conservatism he outlined in Heterodoxy. But as the George H.W. Bush and Clinton years gave way to the George W. Bush and Obama years, David’s yearly meetings began to welcome only the most extreme of Republicans. Eventually, only those sworn to support Trump and the MAGA movement would participate. When Donald Trump first won the presidency in 2016, David welcomed and honored Steve Bannon, whom he regarded as a fellow warrior for freedom and to whom he gave his organization’s annual award for his role in getting Trump into the White House.

Neoconservatives whom David once regarded highly and honored were disinvited from his events and openly scorned and attacked, especially if they rejected Donald Trump. Bill Kristol, then a leading light of neoconservatism, the editor of the Weekly Standard, and an early critic of Trump, was attacked in a vicious fashion by David, who called Kristol “a renegade Jew” in what at the time was emerging as a MAGA organ, Breitbart.com.

DAVID’S ORIGINAL TURN toward the right—as he described it in his autobiography, Radical Son, and in many articles—began with his disillusionment with the Black Panther Party. As a Berkeley radical, he had supported them, helped them with funding, and was often in the company of its leader, Huey Newton. David had recommended a woman named Bettey Van Patter to work as the bookkeeper for the group at the Panther’s San Francisco headquarters. She suddenly disappeared, and eventually her body was found in the San Francisco Bay; it was clear she had been murdered and thrown in the water. David knew immediately that she had been killed by the Panthers, who feared her work in their office revealed material that they wanted kept secret, and not fully trusting her, decided the only course was to get rid of her in true gangland style.

The late journalist Kate Coleman, a friend of David’s who wrote some of the first articles critical of the Black Panther Party, recounted decades later that David “was just blown out of the water,” and the revelation showed that “his guilt was overwhelming. He was really suffering.” It is fair to conclude that this one act, which David has written about over and over through the years, was the catalyst for his re-evaluation of everything he believed while a Marxist and man of the left. Daniel Oppenheimer, whose book Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century includes a chapter on David, perceptively commented to journalist Chris A. Smith that David’s confrontational style made it hard for those he criticized to listen to him and think about his critique of the left. David, Oppenheimer said, “had a very keen sense for where the left’s genuine hypocrisies and vulnerabilities were, but he hit it in this way that was blunt and unsympathetic and unforgiving.”

Oppenheimer was only partially correct. Before he turned to the right, David wrote about his disillusionment for the Nation, the flagship publication of the American left. His article, which appeared in the December 8, 1979 issue, was titled “A Radical’s Disenchantment.” It was, as he later wrote, his “farewell to the left.” The left, he wrote, “could not change itself,” and was “trapped in its romantic vision” and “unable to summon the disposition to look at itself critically.” He continued to blast “apologists of the Left” who refused even at such a late date to criticize the Soviet Union or clear cases of repression in Communist nations such as Cuba. He ended his essay with a challenge to the magazine’s readers: “Can the left take a really hard look at itself—the consequences of its failures, the credibility of its critiques, the viability of its goals?” He then chastised his former comrades for their “arrogant cloak of self-righteousness . . . that makes it impervious to the lessons of experience.”

Although he hoped, or so he wrote, that the left would “fashion a new, more adequate version of radical commitment and radical change,” he would later conclude that his attempt to move in such a direction had been in vain.

The response was a torrent of attack. His mentor, the British socialist and political scientist Ralph Miliband (father of the British Labour Party politicians David Miliband, now head of the International Rescue Committee, and Ed Miliband, now energy secretary in the Starmer government), told David he should not have written the article, and that his arguments had no merit. For years, he would come back to that response and tell one and all—as he often said to me—“I gave the left a chance and not only did they not take it, but they also castigated me for raising such questions.”

It was this kind of rejection that began his movement away from the left in which he grew up and played a major role. One must wonder if a different response from left intellectuals—one that treated his complaints as legitimate and took them seriously—would have prevented his drift into the conservative movement and eventually into its extremist elements.

DAVID’S DRIFT CONTINUED, and his character led him to gravitate toward the most far-right figures—those who, like him, believed they had to wage total war until final victory and the destruction of the left. His writing became more and more tortured and extreme; nuance and thoughtfulness gradually disappeared.

The sadness is, as the extremist partisan persona grew, he was wasting the talent and insights he had to offer. David was a great writer, as readers of his autobiography and his four other personal books can attest. Mortality and Faith is a reflection on spiritual life as a nonbeliever and a seeker for meaning. A Point in Time is a Dostoyevskian exploration of redemption and time; as Walter Isaacson wrote in a blurb, “David Horowitz has produced a meditation on facing death that is poignant and wise . . . he helps us think through that most basic of all questions: what is it that can give meaning to our existence?”

I myself wrote a blurb for You’re Going to be Dead One Day: A Love Story. “I felt a great peace and calm reading Horowitz’s beautiful prose,” I wrote. “He has been able to touch my feelings on a deep level, and cause me to reflect on whether or not I have been able to make a difference while I am among the living.” I stand by this response today, after David himself has passed.

A Cracking of the Heart is about the sudden death of David’s daughter Sarah at the relatively young age of 44. In it, we learn that Sarah became an observant Jew, finding life and meaning in Judaism. After Sarah died, David flew to Berkeley to see his ex-wife, Elissa, from whom he had long been divorced. Yet, he wrote, he had “a durable bond” with her, “forged out of the love we shared for our children, and now for their children, and out of memories of a past long gone.”

Readers of A Cracking of the Heartfamiliar with David’s politics might be surprised to learn that his beloved Sarah was, like her mother, a woman of the left. Given David’s growing vitriolic right-wing extremism, it’s surprising and impressive to see him reveal his pride in her concern for the poor and the homeless, and his admiration for her trips to El Salvador and India, and a trip to “serve a tribe of African Jews in Uganda.” He quotes from Sarah’s prayer for the United States that she submitted to her rabbi at Congregation Beth Sholom: “Let our leaders pursue justice. . . . Protect our leaders from the seductions of power; Protect our right to protest.”

David acknowledged that he had set out on a course “that put us at odds.” He recalls sending Sarah a draft of his autobiography, and writes that she “wanted me to be less dismissive of political opponents and more appreciative of their human complexity.” Later, she dismissed another of his writings by saying “you went into this book with a closed mind & a chip on your shoulder. This sets you up as someone with an axe to grind & sets a tone of condescending contempt.” His answer: “I get your point, and it’s a good one.” He pledged to try and develop a more “empathetic commentary.”

Of course, he never did—and he must have realized it.

Of Sarah, he writes that “she was drawn to the social causes of the Left both by friends and by her own inclinations.” When he and Peter Collier wrote their famous 1985 article announcing that they had voted for Ronald Reagan, Sarah told her sister: “Can you believe it? Dad’s gone over to the dark side.” After her sister reacted, she added: “Oh well, that’s Dad.” David was upset about her “identification with the Left” which he says, “raised my anxieties about where she might be heading and became a source of occasional frictions between us.”

Share The Bulwark

At times David even recognized his own extremist bent. “In this period of my life,” he writes, “I was unable to speak about such matters without passions rising unbidden that were near ferocious.” Perhaps he was unable to see that he continued in that vein, getting more and more strident. Why was he so strident? He explains: “Trapped in an emotional paralysis, which was born of the recriminations and griefs that had become a dominant feature of myself, I was unable to retreat from the words I had uttered without feelings of self-betrayal.” As for the leftist community, he writes: “For them, politics was the quest for a redemption in this world and it inflamed them with the self-righteous feelings that accompanied such hopes.” Writing in 2009, he does not seem to realize the attitudes of the left that he disdained are precisely those of the right he now supported.

The most striking revelation in A Cracking of the Heart is that Sarah worked on Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. She was drawn “inexorably to its cause,” David notes, attracted to a candidate “who reflected in his biography the multicultural backgrounds in her own family, and a campaign which seemed to represent the hopes she had for her country.” He was skeptical, he writes, but when she told “me she was going to Iowa to campaign for Obama I was whole-heartedly behind her and told her so.” Sarah, he writes, marched “into a heartland winter, in temperatures of two degrees above zero to knock on doors and bring out Americans she had never met to join her in her campaign of ‘Yes We Can.’” She was thrilled that “her cause had won,” and, David writes, “I was able to share her triumph.” He told her, “You can be very proud of what you have done.” America, he says, “has already been changed forever by this Iowa campaign, and this could not have happened without you and others like you.”

YET THIS IS ALSO THE DAVID HOROWITZ who blamed America’s decline and fall on this same Barack Obama, whom he believed had consciously betrayed America and turned it to support its enemies. He repeatedly said in public that “Obama is a Communist,” and he urged others also to say this loud and clear. Indeed, David once told me that he asked the also-volatile Sen. Ted Cruz to give a speech calling Obama a Communist, to which Cruz replied: “I can’t say that.” David said to me, “I’m the only one courageous enough to tell this truth.”

We find in one man an understanding, nuanced, and sensitive father and also a harsh, strident, unrelenting fighter against the left—the enemy that he believed was destroying America, and that had to be fought tooth and nail. Unfortunately, it is the latter David Horowitz the world came to know, and he became famous for his strident, harsh, and nasty take on our political life.

As one of his disciples writes in Frontpagemag:

David was MAGA before there was a MAGA and without the movement he helped build, it might never have come into being. . . . Before the Republican Party was ready for Trump, David Horowitz had to teach them how to call the Left by its right names. Traitors. Insurrectionists. The Enemy Within. And he taught them to hit as hard as possible. Leftist institutions didn’t need to be debated, but destroyed. This was not an argument to be settled on a CNN panel, but a war that would end in survival or destruction.

Indeed.

In his Center’s tribute to his life and work, Frontpagemag concludes:

Over the years, David became something of a Saul Alinsky for the conservative movement, shaking a complacent Right out of its sleep and reinventing it as a war machine, laying out the strategies and principles for defeating the Left in too many bestselling books, articles, and pamphlets to count.

David’s message to the conservative movement was that it needed to abandon its habit of embracing noble failure and instead fight to win. Indeed, Donald Trump’s MAGA movement was shaped and guided by David and his disciples like Stephen Miller. And while his passing is an incalculable loss, David lived long enough to see his ideas and tactics become the heart and soul of a new movement to take back America.

What David is being celebrated for is the opposite of the introspective and empathetic writer, a thoughtful and moderate conservative, evident in his personal books. And his supporters give him credit for helping to create the most repulsive and nasty of the Trump entourage, Stephen Miller, who of course, added his own tribute to David. Another right-wing extremist protégé, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, wrote to single out David’s responsibility for Miller’s career in these words:

Twenty-five years ago, David mentored a high school student named Stephen Miller. He supported him through Duke, through the Senate, and into the Trump White House. Today, Stephen is one of the most impactful architects of America First immigration policy. A legend thanks to David’s mentorship.

That is the David Horowitz of the “battle tank”—not the Horowitz who wrote in You’re Going to Be Dead One Day that although he had dedicated his life to “combatting the malignant delusions of the left. . . . I did not want to turn my back on the non-political dimensions of our lives or the bonds we once had.”

Had he wished, David could have addressed these words of friendship despite political difference to me, after the article Sol Stern and I wrote in 2021. Instead, he responded to us with a savage attack. In it, he cleverly denies he ever said Donald Trump had an election stolen from him, writing that “no one can say with authority that the 2020 election was or was not decided by fraud.” (Mind you, David had told me on the phone that Mike “MyPillow” Lindell had proved that the election had indeed been stolen, and complained about how horrendous the attacks on Lindell were.) In his very next sentence, David contradicts his own assertion that he never claimed the election was stolen, admitting he had written “that there was ample evidence of irregularities and illegalities sufficient to question the result,” and quoting himself as saying that the problems with Biden’s proclaimed victory were “‘overwhelming.’”

Clearly, he was deeply hurt by my inability to remain his friend. I take full credit for the break. I found it impossible to remain his friend, since each time I spoke to him on the phone, he relentlessly went on a tirade about my views without ever giving me a chance to try and respond. For example, he wrote in his response that while Democrats and leftists—apparently Sol and I are among that group—called his side many nasty names, including “insurrectionists” (actually we used the term “insurrection” to describe only the storming of the Capitol) and “terrorists,” all his side did was to call Democrats “liberals” or later “radical liberals.”

Really? Did David not read his own website—or for that matter listen to himself when he delivered speeches and wrote articles, when he repeatedly called the Democrats “Communists” or “fascists” or both? Indeed, in his answer to us, he later refers to “the fascist voice of the Democrat [sic] Party.” And his article is titled “My Former Friends Have Joined the Fascists.” I can only conclude that David had a classic Jekyll and Hyde problem: two different personalities in one person—and depending on his mood or what he was working on, one or the other would appear.

AS FAR AS I KNOW, David managed to go against his “battle tank” tendency toward partisan warfare only once in the last few decades: when he published my tough 2013 attack against a conservative writer named Diana West, who wrote a highly problematic book asserting that the Franklin Roosevelt administration during WWII was run by the Soviet Union and its agents, who subverted U.S. wartime policies to allow Soviet communism to spread throughout Eastern Europe. The title of my article was “McCarthy on Steroids,” and the subtitle called West’s argument a “vast conspiracy without the evidence to back it up.” (David wrote both the title and subtitle.) My review led to a bevy of articles and debates about West’s book in conservative intellectual circles, as well in the pages of Frontpagemag, in which the historian Jeffrey Herf was among those who took my side.

I concluded my article with these words:

It is unfortunate that a number of conservatives who should know better have fallen for West’s fictions. It is even more depressing that her book perpetuates the dangerous one-dimensional thinking of the Wisconsin Senator and his allies in the John Birch Society which have allowed anti-anti-communism to have a field day in our intellectual culture.

What led David to depart from his usual partisan stance and not only publish my critique but strenuously support it? I can only surmise, but I think it had something to do with his parents losing their jobs during the McCarthy era, and his understanding that although they were ardent members of the CPUSA, they were not traitors or spies like Alger Hiss or the Rosenbergs. West’s conspiratorial analysis reminded David of the kind of scattershot attacks made by Senator Joe McCarthy in the ’50s—and at the time, David was still more of a conventional conservative, not yet the Trump-style extremist he would become.

David and I had parted ways a few times before Sol and I wrote the New Republic article. In 2017, David erupted when I criticized him in two columns in the Daily Beast. The first was about the hoopla over a memo written by a National Security Council staffer, Rich Higgins, in May of that year. Higgins alleged that the Trump administration had been subjected to attacks by the “deep state” and he called for “political warfare.” What was then still called the alt-right (and would today be called the MAGA right) endorsed Higgins’s proposal. But Gen. H.R. McMaster, then the national security advisor, fired Higgins—which prompted David’s Frontpagemag to accuse McMaster of a “coup against Trump,” and of purging “critics of Islam and Obama.” My Daily Beast column was very critical of the Higgins memo; I called it “a true flashback to the way Joe McCarthy and his far-right allies argued in the 1950s,” and said it exhibited the same conspiratorial logic used by the John Birch Society. And I argued that David and others—including Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and Michael Anton—believed themselves to be waging a “war for America’s soul” against, “in Joe McCarthy’s words, a ‘conspiracy so immense.’”

I again criticized David in the Daily Beast in 2018, in an article about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s decision to appear at David’s annual Restoration Weekend. I chastised David for going “off the deep end in recent years” in his support for Trump. And I quoted many incendiary public comments David had made—about George Soros, about locking up Hillary Clinton, about “anti-white racism”—concluding that “If DeSantis is angry that comments he made at Horowitz’s forum are being used to smear him as a racist and an extremist, he should think about his association with and praise of the Horowitz Freedom Center.”

David responded by writing that Ron DeSantis was being lynched by the mainstream media. The “summary moment in the DeSantis lynching was written up for The Daily Beast by a former friend of mine and now a Never Trumper—Ronald Radosh.” He condemned me for making “reckless attacks” and for depicting David as an “unhinged extremist.” He concluded that I had “gone over to the other side of the political divide to join a disgraceful lynch party” to destroy DeSantis—a “witch-hunt that dwarfs anything McCarthy ever attempted.”

One might think these bitter exchanges would have been the end of our relationship. But a while later, we found ourselves both speaking at an event in Grove City College in Pennsylvania. David’s wife, April, said it was time for us to make up and reconcile, and we agreed to all go to lunch together and talk in a friendly fashion. My memory is that the lunch was rather strained, but we were civil to each other and David agreed that we had to restore our friendship.

After that we communicated via e-mail and spoke often on the phone. When I wrote a tough column in 2020 about Angela Davis forArc Digital, David told me that I had “said everything there is to say about Davis,” and how good he thought my case against her was.

We exchanged many emails. In one of them on December 4, 2020, he wrote me that “I think you’ve joined a party of communists and criminals”—referring to the Democratic party. All he would grant me is that he was glad that I had “not given up what you know about the hate-America left”; he hoped I would win my battles against the Democratic party’s left but doubted that I would. Most of our correspondence ran over the same territory again and again. I stopped communicating when it was clear he was not listening to anything I said when I talked to him on the phone. It proved impossible to really be a friend of a person who made such accusations about my political choices.

I would like to remember David Horowitz for the few times he departed from the usual kind of response he had to extremist right-wing political views—the times when his better angels took over and held him back from the extremist cesspool. It is the David I choose to recall who was a good father, was proud of and supported his own daughter with whom he disagreed politically. That was the David who was my friend, not the man whose greatest recent achievement was to give our country the likes of Stephen Miller.

---

https://www.amazon.com/Final-Battle-NEXT-ELECTION-COULD/dp/1630062243

"My great friend and author of 'Dark Agenda,' David Horowitz, is out with a new book, 'Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last.' It is great! Get your copy."—PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

“I could not be a bigger fan…David Horowitz has been telling the truth for decades, in a way that almost nobody else has been willing to.”—PETE HEGSETH

“Nothing less than a handbook for the salvation of the United States of America.”—DENNIS PRAGER

“Exposes the outrages perpetrated by the Biden Administration and the Democratic Left.”—DINESH D’SOUZA

“An ominous warning about what the future may hold if the present course is not reversed. Don’t miss it.”—PETER SCHWEIZER

Democrats have conducted a sustained assault on the spirit of compromise that binds the union together and set the nation on the path to a one-party state.

Final Battle exposes the real threat that Democrats pose to freedom. The rise of socialism and critical race theory, coupled with threats to the Electoral College and Senate, an independent judiciary, and the integrity of the electoral system, now threaten to destroy the traditions that bring Americans together — the heart of our democracy.

Attacks on these quintessentially American customs codified by the Founding Fathers undermine the possibility of bipartisan solutions to common problems like viral pandemics and civil disorders. Americans now speak in different and antagonistic political languages, and the two parties are so polarized that the American way of life itself is at risk.

In his devastating exposé of the Democrats’ nefarious goals, New York Times bestselling author David Horowitz reveals the hallmarks of their strategies, including:

The double standard in justice: Antifa and BLM versus January 6

Citizenship as disposable: granting noncitizens privileges like voting, welfare, and healthcare

So-called “cancel culture” and collusion in the defamation of conservative voices

“Empires and states rise and fall while everybody is watching. Although the watchers may be surprised when the actual collapse occurs, with the hindsight provided by the end itself, everybody can see how it fell.”

Read Final Battle before it’s too late!

Editorial Reviews

Review

Praise for THE FINAL BATTLE: THE NEXT ELECTION COULD BE THE LAST by David Horowitz:

"My great friend and author of 'Dark Agenda,' David Horowitz, is out with a new book, 'Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last.' It is great! Get your copy."— President Donald J. Trump

“With his trademark incisiveness and clarity, David Horowitz exposes the outrages perpetrated by the Biden Administration and the Democratic Left, which are maddening in themselves but are made all the more chilling because they seem to be part of a project to establish a one-party socialist state in America. We cannot let this happen!” — Dinesh D’Souza, New York Times bestselling author and filmmaker

“It is one of the many credits of David Horowitz’s powerful book that after reading it, one no longer regards the subtitle as hyperbole. That is how perilous the times are in which we Americans live. And no one spells out these perils more clearly than David Horowitz. FINAL BATTLE may be the most devastating book length indictment of the Democratic Party yet written. The book is so important, many parts of it are worth committing to memory. This is nothing less than a handbook for the salvation of the United States of America.” — Dennis Prager, Nationally Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host, Co-Founder of PragerU, and bestselling author of The Rational Bible

“Factually rigorous and meticulously documented FINAL BATTLE is the most devastating indictment of the Democrat Party that has yet appeared, and an ominous warning about what the future may hold if the present course is not reversed. Don’t miss it.” — Peter Schweizer, #1 New York Times bestselling author of RED-HANDED

“I could not be a bigger fan…David Horowitz has been telling the truth for decades, in a way that almost nobody else has been willing to.” — Pete Hegseth, #1 New York Times bestselling author of BATTLE FOR THE AMERICAN MIND

Review

Praise for New York Times bestselling BIG AGENDA: President Trump's Plan to Save America by David Horowitz:

"Provides a clear assessment of the challenges the new president faces and a road map for a winning agenda." — Rush Limbaugh, host of The Rush Limbaugh Show (America's Anchorman) & recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom

"With trademark candor, Horowitz lays out a Trump agenda for restoring the country and sinking the ship of the left once and for all." — Dinesh D’Souza, New York Times Bestselling author of Hillary's America

"Progressives have declared war on America and Donald Trump. Every conservative should arm themselves with this brilliant battle plan for beating them back and winning the war." — Ann Coulter, New York Times Bestselling author of Adios, America

"A compelling road map for Donald Trump — a must read for everyone concerned about the future of America." — Peter Schweizer, New York Times Bestselling author of Clinton Cash

"Trump was vilified like no other presidential candidate in history, yet he still defeated the Democrats… All Republicans should read it for the battle-cry it represents. High school and college students should also study it to understand both sides of the two political ideologues." — HuffPost

Praise for bestselling DARK AGENDA: The War to Destroy Christian America by David Horowitz

"The Best Book on Politics for Christians in 2019." — The Stream.org

“One of the most intellectually compelling and rational defenses of Christianity’s role in America. A Delightfully readable explanation of how Christian principles were the bedrock of the American Revolution, and how the anti-American left has targeted Christians because of that." — Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and Christian Minister

"Read this disturbing but vital book." —Tucker Carlson, TV Host of Tucker Carlson Tonight

"Exposes the intolerance of many atheists toward those who believe in God. As a Jewish agnostic, I think it is imperative that disbelievers not demonize believers and that believers not demonize disbelievers." — Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law Professor and noted academic, lawyer and civil libertarian

"An eye-opening account of the left's sixty-year war against America’s Christian foundations. If you want to understand the political crisis our country is facing, read this book." — Gary Bauer, former Reagan Chief Domestic Policy Adviser, former President of Family Research Council and former President American Values

"David Horowitz has succinctly and wisely laid out the plans of the left to move our country away from the God given right of freedom to practice our faith as our founders envisioned" — Tom Coburn, for United States Senator and Senior Advisor to Convention of States Project

“David Horowitz understands the attacks on Christianity better than any academic—he has been in the trenches of the Left and knows exactly what makes them tick. His keen eye, sharpened by his experiences, offers the reader a magnifying glass to see how and why these assaults are so vicious and so relentless. Thank God we have him on our side. —Bill Donohoe, President of Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

"If you want to understand the Leftist, secularist war against Christianity and our First Amendment freedoms, you must read Dark Agenda. It will make you think, it will make you pray, and it will motivate you to action.” — Michael Youssef PhD, is the Founder and President of Leading The Way with Dr. Michael Youssef and author of The Third Jihad

"In Dark Agenda, Horowitz exposes the sloppy logic elitist bullies and leftist cranks employed to impose their eccentric agendas on America." —John Zmirak, Senior Editor of The Stream

Praise for New York Times bestselling BLITZ: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win by David Horowitz

"'BLITZ, Trump Will Smash the Left and Win', by David Horowitz. Amazon #1 Bestseller. Hot book, great author!" — President Donald J. Trump

“David Horowitz has been rightfully standing up to crazy leftists for decades. If you’re interested in debating deranged liberals with facts, you won’t want to miss this latest book.” — Donald Trump, Jr.

“BLITZ... it’s already a New York Times bestseller. [It] must kill the New York Times that this book is a bestseller. You should read this book!” —Mayor Rudy Giuliani

“We love David Horowitz. He’s a former New York liberal raised by communist parents, saw the light one day, and has become one of us — and he’s got a new book called BLITZ: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win. He thinks Trump is gonna win in a landslide in November, and he gives reasons why in the book, and he says Republicans are gonna be singing “Happy Days Are Here Again” once November comes and the election is over and the votes are counted.” — Rush Limbaugh

"He is one of the bravest guys. He found the real intent [of the Left] was to control America. He has never, ever sat down. A true national treasure.” — Glenn Beck

“David Horowitz is one of the boldest and most brilliant thinkers and writers of our time. His latest blockbuster BLITZ spells out why Trump will be reelected and how it will put the left in a deep sink hole of their own making. A must read for those who want to better understand what is really happening in the ‘idea war’ for the soul of America.” — Governor Mike Huckabee

“David Horowitz has written an indispensable book —BLITZ—explaining why today’s Democrats are so dangerous and why President Trump is their nemesis.” — Mark R. Levin, New York Times bestselling author of Unfreedom of the Press

“David Horowitz has been at the center of our national conversations about politics and culture for more than fifty years. BLITZ is the latest must-read from Horowitz: insightful, hard-hitting, controversial, and uncompromising. Ignore him at your peril.” — Peter Schweizer, New York Times bestselling author of Clinton Cash and Profiles in Corruption

“This book is not simply a very, very good book. It is a great book. I rarely use that term, and I read a lot of books. This is the book your anti-Trump relatives and friends should read. It is a fact-based, highly-footnoted defense of Donald Trump as President of the United States—and it is as clear a moral indictment of the anti-Trump left as has been written. It also has the virtues of being as clear as water and as readable as a page-turning novel. Finally, it is written by David Horowitz whom I consider a modern-day prophet. Prophets hated evil and told the truth.” — Dennis Prager, President of PragerU and New York Times bestselling author

“David Horowitz is an icon and leader in the conservative movement whose books and writings have shaped conservative policies and thinking for decades. BLITZ: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win provides unparalleled insight into the current political climate and David’s expertise and experience give him a unique understanding of how we got here and what it means for 2020 elections.” —Sean Spicer, Host of Spicer & Co., Newsmax TV

“David Horowitz hits it perfectly in this book. Horowitz understands the left better than anyone else in America. He recognizes their malevolent goals and how to stop them. This is a must read book!” — Charlie Kirk, New York Times bestselling author of The MAGA Doctrine

“The definitive summing-up of Donald Trump’s efforts during the last three years to enact his “big agenda” — and of his enemies’ obsessive campaign to foil those efforts at every turn. More cogently than the work of any other commentator, David Horowitz’s book spells out the nature of Trump’s success as president and explains why his re-election is not just a desideratum but a world-historical necessity.” —American Thinker

“BLITZ is the go-to recap of the first Trump term, from the first days of the so-called “Muslim ban” through a deconstruction of the “partisan impeachment,” as Horowitz labels it. BLITZ is a comprehensive reset at the end of the first Trump term. It is catalog of how we got here and how the Left have lost their minds over President Trump’s new way. Horowitz diagnoses the causes and effect of Trump Derangement Syndrome. He also documents how Trump has thrived despite the unhinged hatred aimed at him. In BLITZ Horowitz catalogs where we are, and how we got here since election night 2016. He inventories the fake scandals, the Democrat’s derangement, the sell-out of the American economy to China, and what really motivates Trump. The most fascinating part of BLITZ is Horowitz getting to the essence of what makes Trump unique, effective, and so unfamiliar to the political establishment. BLITZ is a sharp guide to where we are as a nation, and what we face this election. It is a handy inventory of the worst that has happened since election night 2016, and why it is that Trump has survived, all the while remaking the art of American politics. BLITZ leaves readers with the ‘Nine Biggest Dangers to America from the Anti-Trump Left.’” — PJ Media

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Humanix Books (January 3, 2023)

Language ‏ : ‎ English

Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 256 pages

ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1630062243

ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1630062248

Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.23 pounds

Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6.2 x 0.9 x 9.1 inches

Best Sellers Rank: #4,706 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#7 in Democracy (Books)

#18 in Political Commentary & Opinion

#18 in Political Conservatism & Liberalism

Customer Reviews: 4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 905 ratings

7 23

https://www.c-span.org/video/?527561-1/final-battle-election-last

lonny Leitner

Programs Director

Horowitz (David) Freedom Cent

Author David Horowitz warns that America is under threat from the rise of socialism, critical race theory and recent attacks on an independent judiciary and the electoral system.

i have the distinct honor of introducing David Horowitz in his latest best selling book, Final Battle. President Donald J Trump strongly endorsed Final Battle and has even framed his 2024 presidential campaign and election as the final battle. President Trump at CPAC this year said this is the final battle. They know it, you know, it, everybody knows itlike Abraham Lincoln. David believes that America is the last best hope on earth and that's why he wrote Final Battle, which he considers his most important book. He concisely connects the dots underlying all of the economic, social and political devastation. The Democrats have wrecked in a mere 2.5 years under the radical Biden administration which David labels the most overtly racist and anti constitutional government in American history.

You think David's previous writings were hard hitting. Well, you haven't seen anything yet until you've read final battle. David spells out exactly how they rigged the 2020 election. He holds Nancy Pelosi responsible for the death of Air Force veteran Ashley Babbitt. And he shows howBiden single handedly destroyed our southern border making America less safe. David Horowitz is a noted conservative commentator and prolific author of critically acclaimed books that we all know, including New York Times best seller, Blitz and Dark Agenda, the war to destroy Christian America. His work has been featured in national media including Newsmax Vanity Fair, the Washington Post, the Washington Times National Review and dare I say Fox News before they canceled him along with countless others.

He is the founder and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Horwitz Freedom Center is not your typical think tank. It's a battle tank forpatriots to defeat the un American left. It is an honor of a lifetime to introduce to you, the man who told me tostop being so damn polite and to fight fire with fire against the political left. Ladies and gentlemen, David Horowitz,

thank you all for coming about this time, 20 years ago, was in the dining room of this hotel. Uh And it's almost to the month 20 years ago, uh meeting with the leadership of the Republicans in, in the state legislature. Um whose leader at the time was John Andrews who's here with us tonight, even though it's his birthday. I I take that as a present from John. Thank you. In those days, Colorado was still, it was teetering but it was a red state Bill Owens whom I met with prior to this meeting was the Governor John was the leader of the Senate um in chairing the meeting uh with these in influential legislators was my friend, Steve Shock, who is with us tonight. Steve is the most generous and dedicated man. I know. And for the past 20 more years, he's been a great friend and supporter of mine and of the Freedom Center.

And of this event, I also want to thank Shari Williams of the leadership program of the Rockies who has an event herself tonight and couldn't be here but encouraged her members to come. The title of my new book, Final Battle of the next election could be the last may seem like hyper ventilation when in fact, it is a sober and disturbing portrait of where we are as a nation, which is why Donald Trump has not only endorsed the book but has used it at its title Final Battle to Describe his presidential campaign.There's also why for four straight months, it has been the number one best selling book on elections and politics on Amazon

Woke has become a term to describe the enemies of our country. We have colonized our schools and taught our next generations to hate America, to hate white people and to trash art, history and national pride how to explain this tragedy travesty. It began 50 years ago when the anti American Marxist left which I was once a part of when I was young and foolish.

Well, I came by it Honestly, my parents were card carrying communists um and set its sights. The anti American Marxist list set its sights on taking over our schools. In fact, the purpose of my meeting at the Brown Palace 20 years ago was to launch a national campaign for anacademic bill of rights that would protect students from indoctrination by these left wing ideologues who were busy transforming our schools into indoctrination and recruitment centers for Marxist causes in the Democrat Party. The key agenda of my academic bill of rights was that students should be presented in a fair and dispassionate manner with both sides of controversial questions and should be assigned readings representing both sides as well. They only today they just get one side of everything knowing that the previous decades had witnessed a large scale purge of conservatives from university faculties. The very first principle of my academic bill of rights was that no faculty member should be or could be hired or fired or promoted or demoted because of their political views. The next day, the lead editorial in the Denver Postwas an attack on me and my proposal warning that a conservative right winger had come from California to Colorado for the purpose of getting liberal teachers fired the brazen lie.

Culture of the left was already firmly entrenched and very effective at intimidating conservatives and Republicans. Many of you may have thought that the_{ }_takeover of our educational system by anti American Marxists happened overnight. It didn't, it was five decades in the making, but Conservatives and Republicans chose not to notice it. And when they did notice it, they were reluctant to fight. If you want to understand the disasters that have befallen our nation, you have to begin with the failure of Republicans and Conservatives to aggressively wage the political war necessary to defend it. The anti American left attack patriotic Americans as white supremacists, racist domestic terrorists and insurrectionists. And we respond by calling them liberals. Yeah, there is nothing about them that is liberal.

They are vindictive bigots determined to demonize and destroy us.Your intimidation has been working like a charm while Senator Andrews was able to get Republicans to support the principles of my academic bill of rights. They were only prepared to support a resolution, not a law so it lacked any teeth to enforce it. Democrats were happy with this result and John was able to put together a joint resolution supported by both parties which passed both Colorado chambers unanimously. But the cynical Democrats as usual were acting in bad faith and nothing happened as a result. The Democrats had achieved their goal of supporting the transformation of the educational system into an indoctrination and recruitment center for the anti American political left.I wrote five books documenting the Marxist takeover of the schools. They sold about 100,000 copies and I had high level contacts with Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and John Boehner, who was Speaker of the House.

I also created a national Organization called Students For Academic Freedom.However, nothing came of our efforts but toothless resolutions like the one in Colorado Boehner even inserted a resolution endorsing the academic bill of rights into the Education Author Authorization Act.He, he did it because he knew it would infuriate the Democrats which meant that federal funds this by being in the Authorization Act, it meant that federal funds would be withdrawn from any institution that didn't implement its principles. That's if it was formulated as a law, but it wasn't. The result of these failures was the destruction of our educational system and the atrocities committed against our youth today from gender transitioning behind parental backs to teaching thatAmerica was created in 1619 as a white supremacist slave state.

The Democrat Party is no longer controlled by a liberal left. And when I think of liberal leftist, I think of um Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley. So there's two of them, it's controlled by Marxist zealots who willfully disregard the Marxist atrocities and failures of the past

Democrats no longer respect the sovereign individual, the rule of law or the primary values of the constitution, the equality of races, the spirit of compromiseor the decentralization of power. Instead, Democrats regard the constitution as a white supremacist document written by rich white slave owners designed to oppress all of the genders and races. It's mentality is that of European fascism and Soviet communism and its immediate goal is a one party state. This is actually a bad news, good news story. The bad news is that the tremendous damage to our country was made possible because Republicans and patriots failed to address the threat when it could have been nipped in the bud. The good news is that we can take our country back if we are willing to fight for it. I came tonight ready to talk about some of the themes of final battle. The next election could be the last the public debate about the 2020 election.

Like all public debates has been framed by Democrats readiness to demonize their opponents and make brazenly false accusations about their actions and motives. So according to Democrats, the 2020 election was the fairest most just election ever held. I kind of love their lies because they're so obvious. Oh, anyone who questions this preposterous conclusion. Moreover is said by them to be committing an unthinkable act of treason and constitutes an existential threat to our democracy in the real world. As opposed to this fiction. Democrats themselves have questioned the legitimacy of every single presidential election that Republicans have won since 1980. They have done so by going to the well of the House to call for the decertification of Republican electors. NOTE NO SPECIFICS 61 V 1

The reality is that Democrats have been stealing elections since the days of Tammany Hall and their alliances with big city mafias. It's, it's a widely accepted fact that John F Kennedy was elected by the narrowest of margins with the help of Sam John Conor and the Chicago mob who stuffed the ballot boxes and voted the cemeteries of Cook County. Here's the reality of the 2020 election which Biden officially won. Nobody ever mentions this figure by 0.027% of the vote worth 43,000 votes out of 100 and 59 million. In other words, roughly 20,000 out of 100 and 59 million votes could have changed the result. It is often overlooked that in this election, President TRUMP became the only sitting president in the history of the country to increase his vote total and seeking a second term which he did by increasing at 11 million votes to 74 million. Biden who campaigned from his basement got 80 million votes. If you can believe the official tally or roughly 16 million more than Obama at his peak.

These results did not happen by normal campaigning in July 2026 months before the presidential election, the Democrats sent out a task force composed of 600 lawyers and 10,000 volunteers uh and funded by Mark Zuckerberg to the tune of $400 million which is what the DNC invested in the election. This was six months in July 2026 months before the presidential election. Their mission was to change the election rules in, in all the contested states and tip the scales in Biden's favor. According to the US constitution, the election rules are set by the state legislatures. But in key battleground states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. As a result of Democrat lobbying, the election rules were not set by the legislatures that Republicans controlled in Georgia. They were set by a backroom deal between a Trump hating Republican Secretary of State and Hillary Clinton's Fixer law firm Perkins CoIE in Pennsylvania where Republicans also control the state legislature. The election rules were set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which had a 5 to 2 Democrat majority 11. This is something that Trump pointed out and has stopped the STEAL speech 11 days before the election.

They removed the signature verification requirement. So you don't know who is voting now, why would they do that except to cheat? In fact, one ballot done of 570,000 votes in the middle of the night in Pennsylvania. A sign that 99.4% of those 570,000 ballots to Biden and 0.6% to Trump to protest travesties like this. The Trump team has submitted 61 lawsuits with massive documentation of their irregularities. None of this evidence was ever examined. Trump felt abandoned by the Republican legislatures that allowed the Democrats to ignore the constitution and deliver election authority to Democrat controlled entities that would tilt the scales in their favor. In changing the election rules. The Democrat task force did not pursue random agendas. They followed a strategic plan.It was based on how their changes would make it easier to cheat. Their model was provided by the Carter Baker Commission on election reform. If you'll recall, the 2000 Bush gore election had irregularity is like hanging chads in the state of Florida. These irregularities were serious enough that eventually they had to be resolved by the Supreme Court, which side of the election in Bush's favor.

So the Democrats always referred to him as the president elect and did everything in their power to obstruct his presidency. The problems with election integrity were so severe that a night in 2005, Jimmy Carter and Bush's former chief of staff, Jim Baker formed the bipartisan Carter Baker Commission. The commission issued a report listing the chief reforms necessary to ensure election integrity and make cheating more difficult. In 2020 the strategy adopted by the Democrat task force, 600 lawyers and 10,000 volunteers was to reverse every recommendation. Carter Baker Commission made and make cheating easier. Number one of the Carter Baker recommendations was to avoid the use of unsolicited paper ballots. Describe these as quote, the main source of potential voter fraud.

The main source in the 2020 presidential election,Democrat secretaries of state sent out 44 million unsolicited paper ballots. I mean they just send them to homes with the, the names they had and addresses the people might have died. They might be in prison felons. Uh They might have moved to another state and voted twice and so forth dramatically increase this dramatically increased the opportunities for voter fraud. The second key recommendation of the commission was to increase the number of laws requiring voter id.In order to cast the ballot, the Democrats launched an endless smear. It's still going on smear campaign against voter I DS calling them Jim Crow 2.0a racist attempt to suppress minority votes. There was zero evidence to back up this claim since minorities were voting in record numbers in states with voter id laws. Other reforms recommended by the commission were to ban third party ballot harvesting operations and unguarded ballot boxes.

In other words, to, to prevent voting by proxy where somebody comes and collects your votes and does what they want with them. D-SOUZA has written a wonderful book called 2000 mules about this, all of these voting methods, the unguarded ballot boxes, the ballot harvesting. Um and the no voter id laws were required by the new rules. The Democrats put in place whenZuckerberg distributed his $400 million. It is illegal. It supposed to be charity dollars, not involved in politics, but the IRS is probably the main threat to our country. We've done a pamphlet on the IRS showing well,BLM is a charity according to the Irs

January 6th was the date set to certify the electors. On that day, Trump. Trump gave his famous stop the steal speech which has been maliciously described by Democrats as a criminal incitement to insurrection.

This was absurd on its face since Trump had previously met with the Capitol police. Um and offered 10,000 national Guardsmen to control the crowdsto I

I was on a conservative radio show, I forget the capless. Um And he challenged me over this, but actually the inspector general was present and noted it down in his report. Trump's offer was rejected by the Capitol police. The Democrats and Pelosi who was in charge of the Capitol police in his stop the steal speech. Trump described some of the more egregious ballot fixing actions of the Democrats blame the looming loss of the election on weak Republicans. Familiar story here who allowed these changes in the law to happen. He urged his followers to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol to stiffen republiC weak Republican spines inprotesting these electors.

If you failed in your efforts to stiffen their spines because it never happened. Um Because of the demonstrations, if you fail in your efforts to stiffen the weak Republican spines, you need to go home and primary the weak Republicans so we can win the next election, you could not imagine a speech less insurrectionary or more respectful of the democratic process than that later that day, a relatively peaceful protest certainly compared to the ones that the Democrats enabled that in the summer of 2020 led by BLM. Uh you, a relatively peaceful protest took place inside the Capitol. Nothing was burned was a lot of destruction who was immediately attacked by the Democrats as an armed insurrection and the most heinous crime in American history, comparable to 9 11 and the burning of the White House in 1812.

More likely this was the biggest lie in American history. No arms were found among the 800 people arrested. This forced the Democrats to revise their sphere and call it just an insurrection. In other words, treason, but you can't overthrow the government if you don't have armsthat didn't deter Democrats from ritualistically describing January 6th as an insurrection driven by white supremacy and Islamophobia. I kid you not as though that was the reality instead of a hoax. The Democrats also claim that five Capitol police officers were killed by the demonstrators. Four of the deaths were suicides months after the protest and this the fifth was by a Trump supporting Capitol police officer who died of a stroke in his bed on January 7th.

But shameless democrat leaders like Joe Biden and Hakeem Jeffries were still repeating this lie as late as last fall.Only one person was shot and killed on January 6th in the capital. Ashley Babbitt was a 5 ft tall air force veteran was unarmed and threatening no one when she was murdered by a Capitol police officer side at point blank range. The murder was captured on video, of course, they confiscated the video and arrested the reporteR that shot it. Nancy Pelosi hid the identity of the shooter for months. Well, she quashed any investigation. Then she publicly exonerated him and gave him a medal, a real investigation. And I have to, this is the most depressing thing I have to say. I think Kevin mccarthy supported Pelosi and the officer. What is wrong with Republicans, a real investigation if it would have been allowed to happen, would have led to the conclusion that Pelosi was an accomplice to murder. This is a measure of how criminal the Democrat Party has become.

Biden's inauguration was January 20th.

He began with a brazen lie that he would unify the country and represent both those who voted for him and those who did not. Then he issued a series of executive orders that illegally and unconstitutionally nullified our immigration laws and welcome the flood of unvetted illegals from 200 countries to invade our country. The reason I say it was illegal and unconstitutional is he has no authority to change legislation. That's for the legislature. And Barack Obama went on 2020 times on TV, pointing out that the constitution prevented him from messing with the immigration laws and then he went ahead and did it with the DACA recipients. This destruction of our southern border is the greatest crime ever committed by our government against our people. I don't know why Republicans don't every day.

Say this when I'm about to say, give you these figures and they could get much better figures than I have. But here's a glimpse of the impact of the open border. In 2018, the government accounting office issued a report on the number of illegal migrants in American prisons and jails in the five years between 2011 and 2016. Keep in mind that during Joe Biden's first two years in office, more illegals entered the country and in all 12 years of the Obama and Trump presidencies combined. So you can probably multiply the following figures by a factor of three according to the government accounting office in the five years between 2011 and 2016. Brace yourselves.If you don't know these figures, there were 730,000 illegal migrants in American prisons and jails, they accounted for 4.9 million arrests.

That's the revolving door. There were 730,000 of them, but they managed to get arrested almost 5 million times. Thanks this andthey committed 7.5 million crimes. So if my factor of three is correct, that means that we now have 21 million new crimes against citizens against like that poor illegal family in Texas when they killed the whole nut case, killing the whole family. Their crimes of the730,000 included 1 million drug arrests, 500,000 aults, 100 and34,000 sexual assaults, 24,000 kidnappings, 33,000 homicides and 1500 terrorist related events. Thank you, Joe Biden.

Even worse in measuring the moral depths to which the Democrat Party has sunk is to consider the fate of unaccompanied minors under their rule. He called Democrats outrage when Trump arrested the illegal parents of 4000 minors who were not allowed under American law to accompany their parents to prison while they were being processed for deportation. These Children however, remained in the facilities that Obama had built and we cared for by border patrol

Democrat outrage, however, knew no bounds. Biden. Biden personally accused Trump of ripping babies from the arms of their mothers and put in cages and putting them in cages reminiscent of Auschwitz. The slander was hammered home by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and every other leading Democrat practically.

In the same words, it's criminal buying is said in disgust, Trump responded to the this faux outrage. He was actually concerned about the Children by ending the policy within two months. This was a very important part. This was a zero tolerance policy for illegals. He was gonna deport them all and he had to give it up over these 4000 Children that the Democrats demagogued into Auschwitz.I'm convinced when Biden took office, he made it a point to welcome unaccompanied minors to come to the United States. It's 1000 mile. It's going one of the most dangerous journeys in the world. They have to go through jungles, deserts.

Um And they're in the hands of cartel criminals. Um Th this Lord instead of having 4000 parentless kids temporarily separated, the number exploded to 250,000, 100,000 of whom were just lost. The government doesn't know where they are. Somewhere in the United States, unknown to our government andin the tender care of ruthless drug cartels, traffickers and other criminals ready to rape and exploit them as child laborers in jobs that adults will not dothis. Unconscionable treatment of migrant Children is a horrifying stain on our country inflicted by the morally depraved leadership of the Democrat party to a man and woman. Where's the protest from the Democrats? What is the goal of this radicalized party that leads to such atrocities? It is the dismantling of the American system and its replacement by a totalitTIAN state. In addition to his illegal destruction of America's borders, Biden announced at his inaugural that the main theme of his domestic policy would be equity, equity.

He meant by this a government redistribution of wealth, resources and privileges by skin color to justify this policy. Biden claimed that America was and had always been a systemically racist society and that systemic racism touched. These are his words touched every aspect of American life.These were monstrous lies worthy of our most dedicated enemieswhich thanks to the radical takeover of the schools have become the dominant view of America's record on race relations. It is an attitude designed to destroy our country and its political system by making Americans ashamed of their national heritage and actual achievements in providing opportunity to for the record. There is no systemic racism in American institutions. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically outlaws systemic racism.

If any institution were systemically racist, there would be a tsunami of lawsuits filed by racial ambulance chasers like Benjamin Crump, extracting million dollar penalties for violations of the civil rights law and the 14th amendment to the constitution. There is no such tsunami of lawsuits because there's no systemic racism. Well, except for affirmative action which was given a sanction by the Supreme Court in the Bay decision. Terrible decision. It was supposed to be temporary. I forget the date but it's back in the nineties, it's, it's permanent is what it is. The war on white people is really a war in America, its creation and its future. It is a weapon selectively used to de demonize Republican politicians who belong to the Party of Lincoln and support Martin Luther King's vision of a color blind society.

This was also the vision of the founders, which is why the words white and black do not appear in the constitution. The anti white racism that pervades the outlook of the Democrat Party and it forms its policies is no more subtle than the anti black racism of the Ku Klux Klan. But it doesn't emanate from the fever swamp of America's backwater regions. There has been manufactured and promoted in the editorial rooms of theNew York Times, the board rooms of the Pulitzer Foundation, the offices of theteacher unions and the faculties of our universities and schools,which makes it far more dangerous. Here's two ominous results, we now have a serious problem of recruitment in our military because the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs General, Mark Milley are anti white Racists who have made the demonization of White America a core element of military training. Our system of justice is also imperiled by this anti white racism.

We have just appointed an anti white racist KBJ to the US Supreme Court who is such an ideologue that she can't tell you what a woman is. She has been appointed to a position whose only job is to defend the constitution, but she is a believer in critical race theory which maintains that the constitution, a document that then does not contain the word white is a white supremacist contract that should not be respected. I didn't hear one republican on the committee that reviewed her mentioning this small fact, America is not now and never was a racist country. It is true that in the effort to defend slavery, senators developed a poisonous anti-black ideology that flooded the region with racism. But American slavery itself was not a racist institution if it were. And America is a white supremacist country. HUH?

How can you explain the existence of 500,000 black citizens who were free on the eve of the Civil War? You can't. Slavery existed in Africa for 1000 years before a white man ever set foot on the continent. Slavery in America was an important institution. Virtually every black slave shipped to America was enslaved by black Africans and sold to Americans at slave auctions in Ghana and Benin. They were in turn freed by historic sacrifices made by mainly white Americans. 360,000 of whom made the ultimate sacrifice to set blacks free in all history. There is not another case of one race making such sacrifices to free another. Every nation needs to be proud of its history in order to defend itself, Americans can be proud of ours. How do I justify?

Finally, the subtitle of my book, the last election could be the last. The next election could be the last. In fact, I finished it too soon to capture theDemocrats. Latest attempt to cancel our democracy,mobilize corrupt sorrows, district attorneys like Alvin Bragg to smother your opponent with bogus indictments that could land him in jail or tied up in so many court proceedings that he couldn't reach his constituents.

But the real threat can only be assessed by gauging the mentality of one's opponents. For example, how committed are Democrats to the legal system under which we have lived? Here's an incident, you may be unaware of January 2nd, 2021. Trump had lost the rigged election in December. Well, in November of 2020 January 2nd, four days before the January 6 events happened to be the one year anniversary of the death of General Qassem Soleimani whose assination, Trump had ordered Soleimani was the leading terrorist in the world. He was responsible for thousands of American deaths, including every wounded warrior blown up by an IED that you see on TV.

Democrats condemned Trump's decision to kill Soleimani because he was quote a government official. We're now just losing ships. They said to kill this terrorist mastermind was provocative and they all did. It wasn't a democrat who stood up against this. The Iranian regime took a grimmer view. Its dictator Rouhani said that Trump would not only be removed from office since he had already lost the rigged election, but he would be removed from life. We cannot, he said, forgive the killing of Soleimani.

As you can imagine this threat led to a scrambling of White House security officials led by the President's military advisor, General Milley. Details of how Milley led these security meetings were provided by two Washington post reporters who were present according to the post reporters Milly's chief concern was not the Iranian threat to the American president but remarks Trump had made in tweets that night regarding the 2020 election, Millie described Trump's stop the steel speech as and I quote the gospel of the fuHrEr. He told Jose that listening to Trump was like reading George Orwell's 1984 lies are truth.

Division is unity, evil is good. This is a rEICHstag moment. He said, Milly went on to call Trump supporters. The guys we fought in World War Two, they nazis. He proposed ringing the capital with barbed wire and 25,000 troops not to keep out the Iranian terrorists, but to keep out the Republicans and their alleged domestic terrorist threat, we're going to put a ring of steel around the capital. He said, and these nazis aren't going to get in, of course, no threat ever materialized.I think that that barbed wire and those troops cost about half a billion dollars.

Even more disturbing than these ravings by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who is still the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was their endorsement by American elites is a typical comMeNt. You know what Millie was doing said C you, you know what Millie was doing saidcnn's Anderson Cooper. What you know is obeying the constitution. That's what a patriarch does actually would be hard to imagine a clearer form of treason in America's constitutional military or constitutional order. The military is under civilian control. That's what makes us different. And the president is the commander in chief.

Yet republicans failed to notice or mention this betrayal and expose the extent of democrat malice in the process. Our country is in deep trouble. It can only be saved if actual patriots will step up and answer the call. Thank you. I will, I will take questions, you know, ladies and gentlemen, uh David is going to take a few questions. Um, so, uh anybody have a question that you can shout out. Yes, sir.

Fire with fire use, mobilize a nationwide boycott to the point where of the pizza place when you ask them red or blue and when they say blue, you say click, I don't think, ok, I appreciate the sentiment. I'm, I'm not sure that will work. Um Let me give you what I think is, uh, the bright spot.Donald Trump has, um, created the first mass conservative movement, first mass patriotic movement in the history of the country. He must have mobilized a million people getting organized and speaking out is the way to do it. But putting pressure on the what, what is wrong with the Republicans in this state? Um The minute Heidi tore up whenever she tore up and said abortion with no exceptions. She lost. There's no consensus in this country on the abortion issue.

It is possible there is a consensus that would make it much rarer than it than it is. And here's another thing. Why aren't people screaming? Look, Planned Parenthood gets whenever it gets five or 600 million taxpayer dollars. I'm about a campaign, um, topressure or embarrass Planned Parenthood to take $100 million and create an adoption agencyfor and it would expose what's actually happening. It, it's this lack of aggressiveness that's killing us. I, I don't think anyway, I, um, I don't know. I'm, I'm kind of discouraged by Colorado Republicans. And what's his name? The other guy day? Same thing. The Republican party is not a church. It, it has to reflect in some sense where the, the people are now and advanced. The true you, you just can't come out with such extreme views unless you want to lose elections.

So the Democrats are very smart about Republican. No, they're weak spots. All right. Um, now don't roll your eyes, but I believe the real problem is in the programming of those Dominion voting machines and the, the internet access to them. And we all thought that on election night and the few days after last time,but nobody's talking about that now. And I even had a conversation in Douglas County with our deputy clerk and recorder two days ago and she has absolutely no idea what goes on in those boxes. What are we, how can we attack that? How it's just the same won the lawsuits and, and Fox capitulated. I, I think it's it's not that, um, not that focused. They, they're brilliant at stealing elections. But what happened in Arizona? First of all, you can't have fair elections unless there's one election day.

The Republican Party let the Democrats destroy election day. So now you have two months to organize, to cheat and you've got whatever it is weeks after the election uh to, you know, make, make up your gaps and so forth and win. But look at Arizona, the Democrats are highly organized. They have a ground army. Trump is the, the tea party was the first ground army that, that the patriots to develop. But Trump has really made it huge. Um But the Democrats, they have all, all the, all these kids go to schools and they get enrolled in radical causes. You have no idea how far this is gone. I, I've spoken at 400 universities.

So, and I always interview the conservative kids about what's going on when I speak, speak there. I wouldn't go to a campus today. It's too dangerous for, yeah, you have to be a lot younger than I am too. It, it's, it's kind of frightening actually these kids um ok, in Arizona, the voting started, I guess in September. So that means the Democrats are organizing and now when you have ballot harvesting the Catholic votes, they're altering them and you have all these unsolicited paper ballots, you're giving them all the time in the world to focus on stealing the election then on election day or what used to be election day, all the Republicans come together to vote. And on that election day in Maricopa County, which is the largest population county in Arizona, 60% of the voting machines didn't work.

You think that's an accident? It just, you, you can't, I, I, the, the, the Dominion machines is very technical. I mean, I hope somebody succeeds in exposing it but I didn't. So he's got all these films of people collecting ballots in the middle of the night from ballot boxes. Why do we have ballot boxes? Why don't people have to come into the voting booth and show their ID? i mean, yeah, so you're dealing with super professionals at criminality. Democrat Party is a bunch of Gangsters. That's their mentality. They show it every, every time. Well, I would like to see some of our legislators saying that some of our leaders, I would like to see the language. Uh when I say fight fire with fire, I mean that that's it.

The Democrats are so vulnerable on so many issues. Just why aren't we hearing indictments of the Democrat Party for its treatment of the IMMIGRANT? minors for the number of crimes that are being committed? I would like to hear, you know, one uh Republican get up and say, you know, I mean, II I had to construct this from theGAO report in uh 2018, but I would like to see one Republican stand up and sayyou have the blood of X million people on your hands and you, you've got no excuse.

I mean, they this, you know the, yeah, it's, it's difficult to say this but um this picking people by skin color and ideology. It's not just that they, the diversity is black people and Asians and so forth. But it's crazy left wing black people and Asians, nobody talks about the racism issue, the, the issue of black racism, but people were dying in the streets because of it. For example, you can't be intimidated um into silence, which is what's happened with the Republican Party. Uh When, when I was here 20 years ago, I was aware that the universities were a minefield for Democrats for Republicans. They didn't want to hear about it. They didn't know how to defend themselves. They knew they would be accused of politically interfering and universities, but they didn't strategize how to do it, how, how to correct the situation and it could have been corrected and it, it really, you and I had to fight about 20 years earlier. Um Anyway, anybody else? Last question. Uh Do you have any practical suggestions for combating all this election fraudand the, the long election seasons? Do we need, you know, what is the, what is the Republican Party doing in this state?

Not much, not much, but do we need to develop ballot harvesting? Some of us? Are trying to get you need leaders who are the idea? What did judge, what was his name? Joe O, I'm not a politician but why are you running for office if you're not a politician? Well, somebody put him in place. That's a controversial story here in Colorado because he didn't pass the State Assembly. But he, but he bought his way onto the ticket. But nonetheless, the problem that we saw the long election season, what do we do? But I know, but the people are, are having a hard time doing anything about it. So the powers that be, that are in there are controlling that.A lot of people don't want that. But Joe Day nonetheless was our guy. But how do we should we do ballot harvesting like they do for our long election seasons.

Should we do ballot harvesting like they do? I mean, that's Trump's attitude is do what they do. I think we have to and that's closer to the mentality that's needed.You don't want to become what they are because they're disgusting. But we need to compete. No, we don't want to beat them for sure. But you do. You know if, if they're gonna make the voting over six months, you better organize to recruit Republicans to vote during those, during those September to November. I think he's right about that. And if ballad harvesting, I mean, I don't, I'm not in any serious way involved in actual politics. So, I don't fully understand how the be harvesting works, but you need your party to be doing that. But if they, if they don't get the abortion issue, you can just forget it. There's no consensus for no exceptions. And abortions just none. Um, you, you lead with your weakest, you don't have to have that position. You know, it's a, it's a long, it's a long battle anyway.

Why aren't they defunding the schools, the immigrant control? Actually the voters that brought on. I don't agree with that. I mean, you, there's never been a more fluid time than right now. People are Democrats can't be, I mean, ordinary voting. Democrats cannot be happy with what goes on around the capital, for example, with thehomeless problem spending,I don't know how much the state spends, but it's obscene. There's a simple solution to the homeless problem. You rebuild the institutions that we used to have. You outlaw vagrancy and sleeping on the streets and you put them in institutions where their alcohol problems, drug problems can be and mental problems can be dealt with. It's better for the homeless people than this Democrat solution. But I don't hear anybody proposing that. Do you know how, who's, who's got a plan to spend uh $100 million rebuilding institutions to take care of the vEts? Mhm. You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question. Who is proposing the alternative?I don't hear it. I, I mean, I watch, you know, Fox and Newsmax and whatnot. I didn't hear anybody proposing this.

I remember I was in California. Um, it was a famous uh episode. The left there was this woman in New York who was defecating on the, and it was shocking in those days uh in public and the left went out to defend her right to, they had to get her permission to institutionalize her. And then the Reagan Republicans, um the, the Democrats wanted to, you know, everybody's free or whatever the hell I they said, and the Reagan Reagan said, oh, we can save money this way. He was wrong. This cost way better. But, but you don't hear what I, I think, you know, look, I put together this little speech. I, I think that it's a horrific portrait I painted and very accurate that I didn't go out exaggerating anything. UmYou would think nobody would vote for the Democrats. So you either have to conclude. These people are all bought and a lot of them are bought. That's where all your tax dollars went. That's where, that's, that's how we have trillions in debt. It's buying votes for the Democrats.

Not that very many Republicans are saying that in those um So rank terms. So I didn't follow the Denver. So let me tell you, it's gonna be in the next book, all of these questions. But uh in all honesty, uh David's got a lot of books to sign. So I'm going to be the bad guy here. Um But a round of applause for David Horowitz and please grab your book on the way out and uh have him sign it. Thank you. I have to say, yeah. Book TV continues now.

BAK

see main

12/17

bak 7 23 wait 3x

capt 419

gone quiet? 622 tanked alec?! 2018 --> defectors

rww tag

APRIL 27, 2021

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Refusing Vaccination to Own the Libs

APRIL 22, 2021

Right Wing Round-Up: From Pizzagate to Insurrection

NOVEMBER 14, 2019

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: A Totalitarian Show Trial

JULY 17, 2019

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: The Most Brilliant One of All

JUNE 6, 2019

David Horowitz: U.S. History With Slavery Not Our ‘Original Sin’ But ‘Original Virtue’

MAY 15, 2019 11:57 AM

David Horowitz: Trump Is An American Patriot and That’s Why Progressives Hate Him

MARCH 29, 2019 5:30 PM

Right Wing Bonus Tracks: Obama Masterminded The Russia Hoax

DECEMBER 11, 2018 3:08 PM

David Horowitz to GOP Lawmakers: Stop Being ‘Too Damn Nice’ and Start Calling Democrats Racists

OCTOBER 26, 2018 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: Tone It Up

SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 5:32 PM

Right Wing Round-Up: Orphanages Are Better Than Gay Adoption?

mma 6 23

Right-wing media figures popularized and defended the Trump team’s last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election through a scheme to nullify the election results, which is now under investigation by a special counsel — and some of the fake electors have reportedly already testified to a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.

The scheme, cooked up by former Trump lawyers John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, sought to create “alternate” slates of electors in favor of former President Donald Trump in seven swing states that voted for Joe Biden. At the time, several right-wing media figures supported the scheme to undermine the 2020 election, with some calling for key states to appoint their own alternate electors. Other right-wing media figures such as One America News host Christina Bobb and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander were directly involved in engineering the fake elector scheme.

Individuals associated with Trump’s plot to appoint fake electors to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election have begun testifying before a federal grand jury. Last week, CNN reported:

Special counsel Jack Smith has compelled at least two Republican fake electors to testify to a federal grand jury in Washington in recent weeks by giving them limited immunity, part of a current push by federal prosecutors to swiftly nail down evidence in the sprawling criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The testimony, described to CNN by people familiar with the situation, comes after a year of relative dormancy around the fake electors portion of the investigation and as a parade of related witnesses are being told to appear before the grand jury with no chance for delay.

That activity could signal that investigators are nearing at least some charging decisions in a part of the 2020 election probe, sources added.

Now that the special counsel investigation is well underway and a related jury trial over the fake electors scheme in Wisconsin is set to begin, Fox News’ Mark Levin remains a vocally adamant defender of the scheme. On his radio show earlier this month, Levin claimed that “there’s no such thing as fake electors” and that the probe is “another novelty in the law that’s created by another Democrat prosecutor.”

Levin's continued defense of Trump's fake elector scheme is just one example of a yearslong campaign by right-wing media outlets to sow distrust in our elections process — and their consistent refrain that investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election is political persecution has also primed conservative audiences to view the upcoming 2024 election with skepticism.

Right-wing media supported the fake electors scheme and presented it as a legitimate “remedy” for Trump’s 2020 loss

Right after Election Day and two days before the 2020 election was called in Biden’s favor, Fox host Sean Hannity suggested on his radio show that “the remedy” to a Trump loss would be state electors going against the popular vote. Hannity said that to his “understanding,” electors are “not required to vote in accordance with whatever the state popular vote is, if they think there is fraud that is taking place they do have the power to stop that in these states.” [Premiere Radio, The Sean Hannity Show, 11/05/20]

Mark Levin appealed directly to state lawmakers, tweeting on November 5, 2020, “Reminder to the Republican state legislatures, you have the final say over the choosing of electors, not any board of elections, secretary of state, governor, or even court.” (He would later claim in a November 12, 2020, tweet, “Again and again, I have to explain that I never said electors should be chosen by the legislatures.”) [Twitter, 11/05/20]

Writing for The Blaze on November 5, 2020, Daniel Horowitz stated that “state legislatures can have their revenge and have the final say” in the 2020 election. Horowitz also echoed Levin’s support of the scheme, adding, “Mark Levin reminded his audience today that state legislatures are the ones who choose the electors who directly vote for president in each state.” [The Blaze, 11/05/20]

In a November 21, 2020, tweet, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton claimed that a Pennsylvania court decision against the Trump campaign was a “miscarriage of justice and nakedly political.” Fitton also claimed that “under the Constitution, it is ultimately up [to] the Pennsylvania legislature to protect election integrity and appoint a clean slate of electors.” [Twitter, 11/21/20]

Christina Bobb argued on the December 14, 2020 episode of her OAN show that by “having the GOP electors cast their votes in these states, it preserves the legal remedy should Donald Trump win, either in court or in a state legislature, in the future.” She also defended the use of alternate electors because of the supposed “possibility that this state could flip or turn because there’s enough election fraud in here that it’s still contested.” [OAN, 12/14/20]

On the same day, OAN reporter Pearson Sharp showed a misleading video of Trump’s fake electors being denied entry to the Michigan Capitol, which he said was evidence that “official state electors are being barred from performing their constitutional duties.” Sharp claimed that “that video is all you need to see to understand the lengths being taken to undermine the election.” [OAN, 12/14/20]

Former Fox Business host Lou Dobbs legitimized the efforts of the fake electors on the December 14, 2020, episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight. Dobbs uncritically reported that “Republican electors in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia [are] meeting separately today to cast their own votes for President Trump — a procedural move that keeps all of President Trump's legal options open.” [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 12/14/20]

Speaking with Bobb on December 15, 2020, former Arizona state Sen. Kelly Townsend claimed on OAN that the scheme was “absolutely legal and it’s not unprecedented.” Townsend would go on to defend the scheme further, claiming, “So it’s not treason. Some people are saying, ‘Oh, it’s treasonous, it’s seditious.’ It’s not any of that, it’s constitutional.” [OAN, 12/15/20]

On the July 31, 2022, edition of Fox News’ Life, Liberty, and Levin, host Mark Levin passionately defended Trump's fake electors scheme, arguing that ,“you might think it's weird, you might think it's unethical, but it's not a crime.” [Fox News, Life, Liberty, and Levin, 7/31/22]

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2021/07/27/alecs-pr-man-has-a-dark-past-as-spin-doctor-for-african-dictators/

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has a history of defending controversial and harmful legislation, but the man behind ALEC’s public relations machine, Bill Meierling, has defended actions far worse than anything done by ALEC.

Two of Africa’s most notorious dictators hired Meierling to downplay their abuses of power and build political support for their authoritarian regimes: Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Democratic Republic of Congo’s Joseph Kabila.

Meierling helped set up the information ministry of Equatorial Guinea for the country’s tyrant, Obiang, and in the Democratic Republic of Congo he advocated for Joseph Kabila’s illegal attempt at a third term as president.

A “former member of ALEC who grew disillusioned with the organization” sourced the materials for this story to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which were confirmed through Foreign Agent Registration Act filings. Anyone representing the interests of a foreign government has to register as a lobbyist and disclose their activities.

Meierling officially joined ALEC in January 2013 as executive vice president for external relations and strategic partnerships. As head of the group’s spin machine, he has since retained that role and become the chief marketing officer. Meierling “manages crisis response and provides senior level counsel to investor-, government-, and public relations divisions of Fortune 500 member companies regarding state and federal advocacy; environmental, social and governance (ESG) activism; and other concerns.”

In Meierling, ALEC found an experienced propagandist who led the organization through a donor crisis and member exodus when its promotion of “Stand Your Ground” legislation was tied to the death of the unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. He managed PR when Google’s executive chairman said ALEC was “literally lying” about the climate emergency, and when corporations again dropped ALEC for its keynote speaker David Horowitz’s racist and bigoted remarks at a 2018 annual meeting.

Meierling Assisted in Equatorial Guinea Propaganda Campaign

Before joining ALEC, Meierling ran his own PR firm, OpinionMakers International. Through OpinionMakers, he was hired in 2007 as a subcontractor of lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates to work for the Equatorial Guinea government and President Teodoro Obiang. He was paid handsomely, raking in $15,000 a month in fees for his firm. Cassidy and Associates made headlines with their work for Obiang when an executive bragged about how they were able to get Obiang off Parade Magazine’s top ten list of worst dictators. Obiang only “improved” to being ranked the world’s 13th worst dictator.

Meierling fondly recounted his time in Equatorial Guinea in an interview, saying, “I was brought there in the mid 2000’s to help train them and help prop up the information ministry within the country.” The Ministry to which he referred is not so much one of information as it is propaganda. In its 2007 Freedom of the Press Report, the organization Freedom House described Equatorial Guinea as having “virtually no independent media” and stated that “all domestic radio and television stations are owned directly by the government or by the president’s family. State-owned media are dominated by sycophantic coverage of the government and the president.” The country still ranks at the bottom of Freedom House’s rankings with no independent journalism or freedom of speech.

The coverage by state run media is so atrocious, a presidential aide once compared President Obiang to God while on a radio interview in 2003. “He [Obiang] can decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to hell because it is God himself, with whom he is in permanent contact, and who gives him this strength,” said the aide. Obiang uses the state controlled media to stay in office, most recently in 2016 when he won a sham election with over 90 percent of the vote.

“It was just an incredible opportunity to build something from the ground up and to work in a developing nation with the people and the government that was really interested in growing, changing, and telling their story,” Meierling said of his work in Equatorial Guinea.

As part of that job, Meierling specifically worked to spin the dictator’s dismal human rights record.

In August of 2007, Meierling wrote a press release highlighting a visit by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions and the Equatorial Guinea’s supposed progress on “deprivation of liberty” and other human rights abuses.

Whatever progress allegedly occurred, however, was short-lived. In October of 2007, opposition party member Salvador Ndong Nguema died from injuries after being tortured in prison.

Later in 2010, four political opponents of President Obiang were abducted by Equatorial Guinean security forces in Benin after fleeing the country years earlier. They were held in the notorious Black Beach prison, where they allegedly confessed to a 2009 attempted coup. The military executed them after a brief military trial. Human rights observers viewed the military trial as a sham and believed the men were coerced to confess after being tortured.

Meierling also consulted with Equatorial Guinea on the development of its oil industry. In 2008, he wrote a press release for the government highlighting a trip by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) to the country’s new liquefied natural gas facility. A biography on Meierling for another PR firm that was recently removed described his work on the project and touted his connections to the Obiang regime. “When the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and Marathon Oil sought American support for construction of the world’s largest LNG export train from Bioko, Malabo, Equatorial Guinea to Elba Island, Georgia, the African nation’s leadership turned to him,” it said.

While the country’s oilfields have proven to be plentiful, the average citizen of Equatorial Guinea still lives in poverty. Despite having a per capita gross domestic product higher than that of Brazil and China, the country ranks 141st out of 189 on the United Nations Human Development Index.

Meierling has also worked for Obiang’s son, Teodorin, directly. In March, Meierling’s website listed Teodorin and his girlfriend at the time, Eve, as former clients for “reputation” management services, but the content has since been removed.

Teodorin has been the subject of numerous corruption investigations, and has assets have been seized by U.S., French, Swiss, and Brazilian authorities based on what the U.S. Justice Department characterized as “relentless embezzlement.”

According to a 2010 U.S. Senate investigation,

From 2004 to 2008, Teodoro [Teodorin] Nguema Obiang Mangue, son of the President of Equatorial Guinea, has used U.S. lawyers, bankers, real estate agents, and escrow agents to move over $110 million in suspect funds into the United States. Mr. Obiang is the subject of an ongoing U.S. criminal investigation, has been identified in corruption complaints filed in France, and was a focus of a 2004 Subcommittee hearing showing how Riggs Bank facilitated officials from Equatorial Guinea in opening accounts and engaging in suspect transactions.

The report attributed the success of Obiang and his family’s ability to embezzle funds to the help they received from numerous lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants to gain influence.

Meierling Assisted Congo Dictator in Misinformation Campaign to Keep Him in Office

In 2017, while working in his current capacity as chief marketing officer for ALEC, Meierling was paid $20,000 per month for public relations work by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Meierling described the work done through a company called How Handy is That LLC as “strategic communications services” and reported that he would be “writing for, advising or representing the foreign principal.”

Documents disclosed in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act show a series of op-eds appearing in the Washington Times in 2017, many of which attack Moise Katumbi, a candidate who was running in opposition to DRC President Joseph Kabila. While the articles are labeled as “sponsored,” none of them disclose the DRC government as the sponsor. One of the pieces authored by Meierling describes the electoral situation in the DRC as follows:

As President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) readies his country and its government for Congo’s next free and fair national election, some of the very opposition groups with whom he worked to arrange next year’s vote are coordinating with powerful forces outside of DRC who are deploying millions of dollars in foreign money to influence its outcome, undermine its integrity and financially benefit from its aftermath.

Meierling brazenly misinformed readers about the elections in the DRC when he described them as being “free and fair.” At the time, Kabila was illegally holding office, as his constitutionally limited two terms had expired in 2016.

Kabila’s government delayed the presidential election until 2018, claiming to need more time to update the country’s voter registry. Protests erupted in response to the delay, and the United Nations reported that government security forces killed 49 protesters.

The group Journalists in Danger “reported 121 cases of attacks on media from November 2017 to October [2018] and attributed 77 percent of these attacks to government agents, including nearly half to state security forces.”

Meierling is not currently registered as a foreign agent.

CMD reached out to ALEC for comment twice for this piece and received no response.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/354365

no lnx many

Challenging SJP Chicago’s lies

The Horowitz Center’s leaflets expose Jew-hatred and toxic radicalism. Op-ed.

03.06.22

Antisemitism

SJP

Dr. Richard L. Cravatts

[SJP protest

William Stadtwald Demchick]

In yet another revealing example of its hypocrisy and obtuseness when assessing the consequences of its own behavior, the University of Chicago’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) was again whining about being victimized by ideological opponents.

What was SJP’s complaint this time? In a letter to the editor in the university’s newspaper, The Chicago Maroon, SJP expressed its displeasure with the fact that on May 23rd, “the David Horowitz Freedom Center plastered more than 5,000 leaflets on and around campus demonizing Palestinian and pro-Palestinian students.”

Employing its tired tactic of whining that any effort by SJP’s critics is motivated by a desire to shut down any support of Palestinian self-determination, the letter preposterously suggested that the leaflets were posted on campus solely “in order to muzzle and disparage pro-Palestinian activism . . . .”

More absurdly, SJP claimed that the Horowitz Center's “work aims to censor and misrepresent our academic production and to create an environment of surveillance and fear surrounding scholarship about Palestine.”

One could make many claims about its role on the 200 or so campuses where SJP has chapters, but few would ever suggest that the toxic radicalism of the group—and the resulting effect it has on their respective campuses—amounts to “scholarship” or “academic production.” Perhaps SJP believes that by bringing perennially Jew-hating radicals like Rashid Khalidi to speak on the Chicago campus, one of the events included in the leaflet, they are promoting scholarship, but that is not the case.

When guest speakers accuse Israel of being the new incarnation of the Third Reich and when they malign and slander the Jewish state with accusations lacking any basis in fact or history, this is not, despite SJP’s contention, an example of “scholarship about Palestine”; rather, it is hatred disguised as debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

When Khalidi spoke, for example, according to the Horowitz leaflet, he “demonized Israel, accusing the Jewish state of ‘settler colonialism’ and ‘occupation,’ and claiming falsely that Israel attempts to terrify the Palestinians to achieve dominance rather than to ensure the nation's safety: ‘I don't think it's security [for Israel that] fully describes accurately what is at stake here. What is at stake is actually dominance and hegemony when Israeli soldiers are kicking down doors and scaring children in the night . . . .’”

What is most revealing in SJP’s baleful letter to the editor is its inability to see how its complaint about the corrosive effect of the leaflet on the University’s community mirrors exactly the effect SJP has had for a decade or more on the campuses that have experienced the hostility and aggression of their pro-Palestinian activism. The leaflets, SJP suggested in its letter. “go so far as to incite hostility and hate against and within our community. They inhibit our capacity to work and study, to commune, to feel safe.”

It is not clear what SJP means when they refer to “our community,” but that community clearly does not include U Chicago’s Jewish students, who, like Jewish students and other supporters of Israel at other campuses around the country, have been ideologically assaulted by SJP in an unrelenting campaign of lies, slanders, and distortions of history and fact, boycott resolutions, and accusations against Israel of racism and apartheid as part of SJP’s campaign to malign and destroy the Jewish state. The group clearly could not care less whether Jewish students have a “capacity to work and study, to commune, to feel safe.”

In fact, as has been documented by the AMCHA Initiative and others who track anti-Semitism on campuses, BDS activity on a campus—and especially when orchestrated by SJP or other anti-Israel groups—frequently creates a hostile climate for Jewish students and often manifests itself as raw anti-Semitism. As one AMCHA report noted, “the consideration of anti-Israel divestment resolutions in student government or by the student body was strongly linked to a surge in anti-Semitic activity,” and campuses that have an SJP chapter have witnessed a higher incidence of anti-Semitic speech and expression as a direct result of its radicalism and activism.

In November 2021, for example, as the leaflet outlined, “SJP at U. Chicago published an art zine titled ‘Cheers to Intifada.’ The zine promoted terrorism against Israel and contained violent imagery including a graphic of two lit Molotov cocktails raised in a toast . . .The zine was also rife with anti-Semitism including an image of a pig wearing a policeman's hat with a Jewish star on it. Poems in the publication promoted ancient blood libel tropes against Jews such as one describing a Jewish teenager who held Palestinians captive and had ‘animalistic lust yearning to rape bodies.’

SJP may consider this type of perverse, anti-Semitic, and genocidal propaganda to be “academic production” and “scholarship about Palestine,” but in a sane world, it represents a poisonous and hateful ideology in which fellow Jewish students are the enemies of good, are racists, support an apartheid state, deserve to be victims of an intifada which has as its objective to murder Jews wherever they are in the name of Palestinian self-determination. On no university campus, and certainly not at an institution with the reputation and quality as the University of Chicago, would this type of banal radicalism pass for scholarship, let alone acceptable academic discourse.

As they have on other campuses, SJP Chicago has also worked aggressively to promote BDS resolutions and to push a statement of solidarity for the Palestinian cause through its student government. “In June 2021,” the leaflet noted, “SJP published a lengthy statement calling on the College Council to ‘vote “NO” on the resolution to retract [the University Student Government's] statement of solidarity and support for Palestine.’ SJP's statement promoted Jew hatred and demonized Israel, calling campus supporters of the Jewish state ‘student body apartheid apologists,’ and denying Israel's self-determination by calling for the ‘abolition of a violent political state [of Israel].’”

In April, at the behest of SJP, The Chicago Maroon, retracted an op-ed written by two students, “We Must Condemn the SJP’s Online Anti-Semitism,” who questioned SJP’s tactics and ideology.

On January 26th, as the op-ed by Melody Dias and Benjamin ZeBrack noted, SJP had posted on its Instagram page the shocking admonition, “DON’T TAKE SH*TTY ZIONIST CLASSES.” Students were asked to “Support the Palestinian movement for liberation by boycotting classes on Israel or those taught by Israeli fellows.” According to the SJP post, any students who enrolled in these classes would be “participating in a propaganda campaign that creates complicity in the continuation of Israel’s occupation of Palestine” and that, in its view, “Israeli-centered classes are designed to obscure Palestinian perspectives.”

Characteristic of their reaction to anyone who answers back to their corrosive activism, SJP was incensed that anyone had the gall to question their tactics and motives. Another post on the SJP Instagram account in response to the Dias-ZeBrack op-ed expressed the defective view often held by anti-Semites that “To frame this call as ‘anti-Jewish’ not only perpetuates the dangerous (and wholly false) conflation of Jewishness and Zionism, but also deliberately diverts attention from the ongoing ethnic cleansing that the israeli [sic] colony has been inflicting on Palestinian lands and peoples from its inception to the present.”

The widely-adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, as many know, stipulates that, in many instances, attacks on Zionism can be considered anti-Semitic, particularly when those attacks are attempts to deny Jewish self-determination or when Zionism is classified as a racist, oppressive endeavor, so despite SJP’s claim that the claim is both dangerous and wholly false, experts in these matters—and not biased, anti-Semitic ideologues—have determined that there is support for Dias and LeBrack’s views.

Nevertheless, SJP demanded of the Maroon’s editors, “in response to these offenses,” the “Immediate deletion of the article,” a “public apology issued by the Maroon to SJP UChicago and to Palestinian students for the dissemination of misinformation and the disregard of journalistic integrity and factual reporting,” and, most ominously, “a public recommitment to ensuring that all columns and articles abide by expected standards of accuracy and truth, particularly those written by Zionist authors or on behalf of Zionist organizations.” [Emphasis added.] In other words, SJP requested a separate standard of exclusionary journalistic ethics and practice when Israel, Zionism, and Jews are involved.

Astoundingly, in response to SJP’s absurd demands, two feckless editors, Kelly Hui and Elizabeth Winkler, not only deleted the offending op-ed but published a craven, apologetic editorial of their own in which they dissected the op-ed for its perceived factual inaccuracies and justified their decision by claiming that it was the op-ed written by the pro-Israel supporters which could be the source of campus enmity, not the original action of SJP in calling for a boycott of courses about Israel.

“We condemn the pitting of Jewish and Palestinian students against one another,” they wrote, “and we deeply regret the extent to which the op-ed’s factual inaccuracies—which we should not have published—perpetuated such a harmful dynamic.” Of course, in addition to the editors’ outrageously inappropriate action in removing an opinion piece from The Chicago Maroon, written as a response to a campaign of demonization and delegitimization of Israel and Zionism by the chronically toxic activists of SJP, they compounded the offense by suggesting that sections of the op-ed contribute to “pitting of Jewish and Palestinian students against one another.” No, actually, it was SJP’s poisonous attacks on anything Zionist on campus and its initial call for “shitty” Zionist courses to be boycotted that pit pro-Israel students against pro-Palestinians, not op-eds that correct misinformation or defend Israel.

Only on university campuses where perceived victims can attack their alleged oppressors with any calumny, untruth, slander, and allegation they choose—without repercussions—could a group like Students for Justice in Palestine continue to operate with impunity, attacking Jewish students and other supporters of Israel with impunity and creating a hostile campus climate in their radical wake as it does.

But SJP at Chicago clearly does not fully understand the notion of academic free speech: that the same opportunity they have to spout their hateful rhetoric and promote their toxic ideology is also enjoyed by the group’s ideological opponents.

When pro-Israel students, guest speakers, events, courses, or even leaflets distributed around campus seek to expose SJP’s true nature—with facts and examples as opposed to lies and narratives—SJP may be inconvenienced by having to finally defend its views in a robust and equitable marketplace of ideas, not its own echo chamber where its lies are never challenged and its toxic Jew-hatred is never named for what it is.

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D.,is a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and the author of Jew-Hatred Rising: The Perversities of the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

dirty tricks dvd 2008

https://wallstreetonparade.com/koch-footprints-lead-to-secret-slush-fund-to-keep-fear-alive/

koch Footprints Lead to Secret Slush Fund to Keep Fear Alive

By Pam Martens: October 26, 2010

A secretive libertarian nonprofit with ties to Charles Koch bankrolled what was widely perceived to be a fear mongering effort to throw the Presidential election to Senator John McCain in 2008. Until now, where the money came from has been a hotly debated mystery.

Seven weeks before the Presidential election of 2008, approximately 100 newspapers and magazines in the U.S., including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, and St. Petersburg Times, distributed millions of DVDs of the documentary, “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” Altogether, including a separate direct mail campaign, 28 million DVDs flooded households in the swing voter states.

The newspapers did not know who was funding this massive propaganda campaign and, apparently, did not care. They inserted the DVD in their Pulitzer properties with the casualness of throwing in a sample of suds free detergent. The nonprofit organization named on the packaging of the DVD as the entity behind the film, the Clarion Fund, Inc., had no known history of operations and had a virtual office address in New York City with no physical presence and no employees on site. Documents submitted to the IRS to obtain its tax-exempt status show the Clarion Fund demanded total secrecy from its vendors:

“At all times, whether during or after the provision of services to Clarion, Service Provider shall keep in confidence and shall not disclose or use, for his or another’s benefit, any nonpublic knowledge, data, material, document or other information of any type that is related to Clarion, or its subsidiaries, directors, members, managers, agents, employees or other affiliates or that Service Provider otherwise acquires in the course of providing services (collectively, the ‘Confidential Information.’).”

The DVD packaging was slick, leveraging the imprimatur of the big league media outlets by listing 73 of their names as part of its distribution network. The cover carried a red banner blaring: “As seen on CNN and FOX News by more than 20 million viewers worldwide.” The title of the film was graphically enhanced with the “O” in “Obsession” sporting the Islamic crescent moon and star and the “N” represented by an upended fearsome automatic weapon. The movie content was slick as well. The first half is endless scenes of suicide bombers and human carnage; the second half of the film intersperses clips of Hitler, Hitler Youth, or Hitler analogies intermittently with Muslim crowds and young children with fists in the air calling for death to westerners. Once at the beginning and again at the end, the film reminds us that not all Muslims ostensibly want to kill us; in the middle of the film it quantifies the number that do (without any support to back up this hunch): a cool 100 to 150 million, i.e., 10 to 15 per cent of 1 billion Muslims.

In one particular respect, it resembles a government-made war propaganda film: it is silent on the hundreds of thousands of civilian Muslims, including women and children, killed by U.S. bombs and ground war.

One possible tie to government interests is Erik Werth. Mr. Werth served under Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in the Clinton White House where he worked on a Top Secret review of White House Security. He was also a segment producer at NBC’s Dateline. In documents submitted to the IRS to gain tax exempt status for the Clarion Fund, Mr. Werth’s email address is listed. Mr. Werth is named as the Co-Director and Co-Producer of the Clarion Fund’s subsequent documentary, “The Third Jihad.” The Fund’s web site, RadicalIslam.org advises that yet a third film is on the way, “Iraniam,” concerning Iran and nuclear weapons.

The reaction to corporate media peddling this propaganda in the final days of a Presidential race where one candidate was already being smeared for Muslim ties was immediate and harsh. A writer at Democratic Underground using the moniker MrMickeysMom grabbed the keyboard to vent a spontaneous reaction: “Okay – Who ELSE just picked through the Sunday advertisements and viewed this DVD today?…They’re here to warn us about the declaration of war on Western Culture and to bring down Christianity and Judaism – just in time for the election. So, this is the heat, folks. This blitz DVD is one more step – the biggest, boldest step I can see to orchestrate fear, hatred and to change your vote…It told me that the White House will be changed and become the Muslim House…that America has to wake up and that America is strangling itself with ‘our political correctness.’ ”

Margaret Lewis of Durham, North Carolina fired off a letter to The News & Observer of Durham, North Carolina: “I cannot believe that I was sent the hate-inflaming, fear-mongering video disk ‘Obsession’ in my newspaper! What will you enclose next? KKK robes?”

Hal Chase of Hudson wrote to the St. Petersburg Times: “My wife and I were shocked to see the CD entitled Obsession tucked innocently among the ads in our Sunday paper. This hate-filled propaganda is just part of the right-wing extremists’ fear and smear tactics. Their hope is to make Americans afraid of anyone who is not exactly like them, and thereby affect the outcome of November’s election.”

Approximately 60 newspapers refused to accept the DVD for distribution, including the Detroit Free Press, the Plain Dealer of Cleveland, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina.

At the time, John Robinson, Editor of The News & Record, said the paper declined to distribute the DVD because “…it was divisive and plays on people’s fears…As I’ve said on other occasions about news decisions, just because you can publish doesn’t mean you should.”

We can now report what this race-baiting, fear-mongering campaign cost and where the money, at least nominally, came from. The 28 million DVDs were produced at a cost of $15,676,181 by Artist Direct Media which does mass manufacturing of CDs and DVDs with volume discounts. The big media buy for Sunday newspaper insertions ran up the tidy tab of $719,436 and was conducted by NSA Media, a unit of the global ad giant, Interpublic Group, parent of McCann-Erikson. That figure seems decidedly on the light side so there may be other funding sources involved that have not yet surfaced. (NSA Media is a powerful ad buyer, representing some of the biggest print buyers and consumer brands in the country, which might help explain why so few questions were asked by the largest newspapers about this unseemly project.) The full tab, and then some, was paid by the super secretive libertarian nonprofit, Donors Capital Fund. In 2008, Clarion Fund became Donors Capital Fund’s largest grantee by a large margin, receiving $17,778,600. That sum constituted 96 per cent of all funds received by Clarion in 2008 and 9 times its revenue in 2007.

Donor’s Capital Fund is a “supporting organization” to Donors Trust, a sister nonprofit. Both promise the pursuit of taking over social welfare needs with private funds rather than government solutions; they want small government. (With 43 million Americans now living below the poverty level, it’s fascinating to know that these folks earmarked $17 million not to hunger relief but to DVD packaging. Let them eat plastic, perhaps.)

There are shades of Charles Koch all over Donors Capital and Donors Trust. Two grantees receiving repeat and sizeable grants from Donors Capital are favorites of the Koch foundations: George Mason University Foundation and Institute for Humane Studies. Another tie is Claire Kittle. A project of Donor’s Trust is Talent Market.org, a headhunter for staffing nonprofits with the “right” people. Ms. Kittle serves as Talent Market’s Executive Director and was the former Program Officer for Leadership and Talent Development at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Then there is Whitney Ball, President of both Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust. Ms. Ball was one of the elite guests at the invitation-only secret Aspen bash thrown by Charles Koch in June of this year, as reported by ThinkProgress.org. Also on the guest list for the Koch bash was Stephen Moore, a member of the Editorial Board at the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Moore is a Director at Donors Capital Fund. Rounding out the ties that bind is Lauren Vander Heyden, who serves as Client Services Coordinator at Donors Trust. Ms. Vander Heyden previously worked as grants coordinator and policy analyst at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

Legal counsel for the Kochs has declined to respond to two emails with a week’s lead time seeking clarification of the relationship the Kochs have to Donors Capital and Donors Trust.

What remains unclear is the underlying donor within Donors Capital who made the large sum possible. Was it a joint effort by wealthy donors to boost Senator McCain’s presidential aspirations? Was it a single Islamophobe? While the DVDs were hitting the front lawns bundled in newspapers, the Clarion Fund posted an endorsement for McCain as President on its web site, a legal breach for a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit. When it was outed by the media, it quickly removed the endorsement. What is certain is that the donor(s) had every reason to believe they would never be discovered. The organization advises contributors on its web site: “Unlike with private foundations, gifts from your account will remain as anonymous as you request.”

Prior to this sophisticated and expensive media campaign in the final approach to election day, “Obsession” was part of the 2007 college road show headed by the lefty turned radical right, David Horowitz (who dramatically improved his tax bracket by discovering the greatest threat to America’s future was radical Islam, just before the rest of the country discovered the greatest threat to America’s future was home grown terrorists with algorithms and high speed computers on Wall Street trading floors. While Mr. Horowitz had a fourth of the country gazing at variations of Hitler’s mustache, the underpinnings of America’s financial infrastructure were imploding right under our noses.) Mr. Horowitz joins the swelling ranks of pundits and academicians earning a fat living from tax subsidized nonprofits while railing against government welfare. His pay at his nonprofit, Freedom Center, was a sweet $480,162 in 2008, the most recent tax filing available on line shows. Total salaries and benefits at the Center represented 40 per cent of revenues in 2008.

Throughout the fall of 2007, and continuing into 2008, Mr. Horowitz promoted his “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” program to more than 100 college campuses, with the film “Obsession” made available for viewing. His Freedom Center established a program and web site called Terrorism Awareness Project, which linked with conservative student groups on campus.

Was there a nexus between Mr. Horowitz’s drive to promote the film and it being later bankrolled by a super wealthy libertarian nonprofit? What we do know for sure is that the far right has assembled a $6 billion interlinked machine of think-tanks, lobbyists, PACs, astroturf front groups, media sycophants, endowed professorships, state-based political fronts and now even their own centralized headhunter; all to throw us off the scent that the real threat to the poor and middle class in America is corporate domination.

This article originally appeared at www.CounterPunch.org

spicer bk blurbs

“RADICAL NATION is a point-by-point reminder of the damage already done. Every patriotic Americans need to arm themselves with a copy of this book.”

— DAVID HOROWITZ, NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLING AUTHOR OF BIG AGENDA, DARK AGENDA & BLITZ

“Sean Spicer goes boldly forth in RADICAL NATION to outline the true anti-American threats of the Biden-Harris administration — then just as boldly, to offer workable, feasible, doable solutions. He’s injected a much-needed jolt of optimism into these dark, progressive-socialist political times. Well-written, well-researched, comprehensive and even better, from a reader’s perspective: utterly interesting!”

— CHERYL K. CHUMLEY, AUTHOR OF SOCIALISTS DON’T SLEEP & LOCKDOWN

culmination of his work?

msnbc moral panic: you raise kids w/ right values/american and univ makes them into liberals[and/or gay?]

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/ron-desantis-2653505905/

Florida goes full fascist': Ron DeSantis sparks furious backlash with ‘authoritarian’ campus political surveys

Raw Story June 23, 2021

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation requiring Florida students, faculty, and staff to register their political views in surveys in an effort to promote "intellectual diversity" at colleges and universities, and the measure set off backlash across social media.

Critics decried the law, which DeSantis claims will promote freedom of speech, as a "thoroughly Orwellian" attempt to gain control over academic debate at institutions of higher learning.

Well, this is thoroughly Orwellian. ?? Faculty and students of Florida, you know what to do! Freep Mini-Trump's stup… https://t.co/N2nEE5UzuM

— Betty Cracker ?? (@Betty Cracker ??)1624454881.0

Well that's got to be unconstitutional: Florida students required to register political views with the state to pro… https://t.co/b1Bh8p98uN

— David Rothkopf (@David Rothkopf)1624455537.0

DeSantis wants to survey university students and staff, with the threat of budget cuts if he doesn't get his way???… https://t.co/IWfcM8nGhI

— Witty Librarian In a Mask (@Witty Librarian In a Mask)1624455089.0

https://www.mediamatters.org/david-horowitz/newsmax-guest-if-slavery-was-original-sin-its-african-sin

apr 22 show

bOB SELLERS (HOST): David, give me your feeling for this. You have ten reasons. We don't have time for ten, but what are some of the ones that you think people should be most aware of.

DAVID HOROWITZ (GUEST): It doesn't make any sense to sue the government that freed the slaves. You should be suing the Confederacy, that was this warring power. The United States spent probably the equivalent of trillions of dollars, they -- we gave 350,000 lives, mainly white lives, in the Union Army to free the slaves. There isn't a slave alive, there's not the child of a slave alive, probably not even the grandchild of the slave alive. This is just racial extortion. The majority of Blacks in America - and this is a well-kept secret - are in the middle class. Not to mention, you know, the multi-millionaires and billionaires like, one of my favorite billionaires, Shaquille O'Neal.

But American Blacks have more privilege, more opportunity, more equality, more rights, more wealth than the Blacks in any other nation on Earth, including all of Black Africa and the Black Caribbean.

If you are a Black person, you are blessed to have been born in the United States. That's just the reality. You just have to look, you know, at the TV screens. Look at the ads. I bet 70% of them feature Black actors and actresses, integrated couples, taboo relationships like Black men and white -- well, what used to be taboo. So do you think these wealthy companies want to lose money? They know that their customers aren't racist, otherwise they'd wouldn't be investing hundreds of millions of dollars in ads that feature Black people, would they?

SELLERS: Ok, well, you also make the point you -- I think want to -- correct me if I'm wrong -- one of your bullet points is that African-Americans in this country have already been paid reparations. And I don't know exactly what you mean by that. So why don't you explain?

HOROWITZ: They've been paid 20, whatever -- last time I looked it was $22 trillion spent on the war on poverty. A lot of that affects Black people, although it wasn't specifically for them, they get to benefit by it. You know, I have to laugh when people say Blacks have marginalized and therefore oppressed. Blacks are the center of attention in our country, they're the beneficiaries of most of the goodies that the government gives out -- in compensation for what? For people who have never been slaves. For people whose parents have never been slaves. Come on! It's, you know, we should remember the tragic origins of our country when slavery was global.

SELLERS: Ok, ok.

HOROWITZ: If slavery was an original sin it's an African sin because every Black person who is shipped to this country as a slave was enslaved by Black Africans who took --

SELLERS: Ok, ok. we're running out of time, David. I got to go. I'll just point out it's two white guys talking about this, but I think a lot of people agree with you, including a number of people of color. So we appreciate your joining us.

an 1220

Age of Trump and its cruelty were not made possible by shades or ghosts or nameless, anonymous bureaucrats and followers. These were people who made the kinds of choices Hannah Arendt warned us about: "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."

In total, the Age of Trump was made possible and given life by people, real human beings who should be held accountable to the fullest extent possible, by the law as well as the judgments of history and people of conscience.

The Age of Trump and its cruelty were not made possible by shades or ghosts or nameless, anonymous bureaucrats and followers. These were people who made the kinds of choices Hannah Arendt warned us about: "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil."

Miller has repeatedly taken Trump's worst instincts and made them worse yet. Examples include the child separation policy, mass detention centers along the border and a general policy of cruelty toward nonwhite migrants and refugees, sabotaging pandemic relief efforts, and an overarching strategy of mainstreaming white supremacy into public policy and attempting to overturn America's multiracial democracy.

In this conversation, Guerrero explains how Miller was radicalized as a teenager into the ideology of white supremacy and other forms of right-wing extremism. Guerrero also details how the right-wing political machine mentored and elevated Miller, first as a rising star in high school and college and then all the way to the Trump White House. She also offers an explanation of Miller's profoundly damaged sense of masculinity, which manifests itself through an obsession with gangster movies and a ghoulish fixation on violence. This is a trait Miller shares with Trump, and one that helped to bond the two closely together in their shared political project.

Ultimately, "Hatemonger" is a reminder that human monsters must be created. They are not born that way.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Why has there been such denial among the mainstream news media about the white supremacists inside the Trump administration? Most notably, of course, I mean Stephen Miller. This has continued throughout Trump's four years as president.

Stephen Miller does a really good job of laundering white supremacist ideas through the language of "heritage" and "economics" and "national security." People who have racist inclinations do not like to perceive themselves as racist. Even those people who are racist and creating those public policies can continue to entertain such a fantasy.

Once you start to familiarize yourself with white nationalism and its literature, those concepts are being repeated almost verbatim by the likes of Stephen Miller and others in the Trump administration, as well as their spokespeople and media. The policies of the Trump administration were drawn specifically from a blueprint created by think tanks supported by John Tanton, the eugenicist who believed in population control for nonwhite people. He also believed in race-based pseudoscience and the genetic superiority of whites.

Part of the denial about that reality is a function of systemic issues, such as a lack of diversity in newsrooms and publishing. There are white managers in those spaces who are really reining in their reporters, telling them to not use terms like "racist" or "xenophobe" when describing people like Donald Trump. There is the narrative that such language should not be used to describe Trump, because we "don't know what is in his heart." I did not write my new book "Hatemonger" to tell the public what is in Stephen Miller's heart. What I can tell you is that Stephen Miller is fluent in the language of hatred. He speaks the language of people who hate. I cannot necessarily tell you if there is hate in his heart. Stephen Miller is a hatemonger. He has been engaging in hate-mongering in a deliberate way. He does this through cruel policies, such as systematically separating children from their parents, basically obliterating the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border and slashing refugee admissions to historic lows.

What is Stephen Miller an example of?

He is a case study in indoctrination and radicalization. Stephen Miller is the story of what happens when a person is exposed to an extremist ideology during a vulnerable and difficult time in their life. Such a person then ends up becoming consumed by extremism. And then, in the case of Stephen Miller, said person goes on to become the most powerful adviser in the White House.

Stephen Miller was going through a tough time as a teenager. His father is a real estate investor, like Donald Trump, and he was tangled up in legal disputes and bankruptcies related to his business. Miller's father ended up losing a lot of money and the family had to move to a slightly smaller house in a less affluent, less white neighborhood. My conversations with people who knew Miller at the time, people in his family, revealed that Stephen Miller's life was unraveling in a small way, to the extent that he lost his place in line as a rich white male. He felt entitled to that privilege. He was looking for somebody to blame.

At the time there was extreme anti-immigrant hostility in California. The Republican governor, Pete Wilson, was talking about a migrant "invasion" at the border and blaming it for everything that was going wrong in the state. Stephen Miller is really a product of that political and social moment. Miller internalized a lot of that racist rhetoric and ended up meeting some very far-right figures, one of whom was David Horowitz. He introduced Stephen Miller, during this vulnerable time in his life, to the idea that values such as equality and freedom, and other parts of America's civic religion and national mythos, are entirely thanks to white men.

Of course, that is obviously and completely ahistorical. Stephen Miller is a Jewish American. He is the descendant of refugees from Europe. But Miller really saw himself as a white man and began to rally around this idea that America was in danger because of brown and Black people who were coming into the country. David Horowitz introduced a young Stephen Miller to the mission that he needed to save the United States from an existential threat, in the form of the Democratic Party and its alliances with people of color.

How did the right-wing political machine elevate Stephen Miller?

David Horowitz was worried that Stephen Miller was not going to get into an elite university because he was so unpopular in high school and constantly attacked students of color, as well as initiatives to remedy the negative impact of racial inequality.

Horowitz allowed Miller to publish self-promotional articles on his website about all the changes that he had allegedly brought to his high school. Another leading right-wing figure, Larry Elder, allowed Miller to come onto his radio program regularly, when he was a teenager, to complain about his high school.

At Duke University, he continued to use David Horowitz's ideas to get a bigger and bigger platform. For example, Miller was given a column at the Duke newspaper by leveraging the language of "diversity." That tactic is something that Horowitz taught him: Use the language of the civil rights movement against it. He was consistently drawn to racial controversies while at Duke. Miller would get national media exposure from that. But Miller graduated without a job. He was again a fringe figure.

Horowitz comes to Stephen Miller's rescue and gets him his first job, with Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party congresswoman. And then from there he gets Miller a job with Rep. John Shadegg from Arizona, and finally with Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama. Over time Stephen Miller became extremely well connected in the far-right movement, and that helped him get a job working for Donald Trump.

What does Stephen Miller want?

There are two answers to that question.

One of them is very much focused on immigration. He was indoctrinated into the belief that too much immigration from brown and Black countries is detrimental to the United States. What Miller wants is to attack immigration from those countries through whatever means available. That could be through reducing the actual number of people allowed to come to America from those countries or implementing cruel policies in order to deter or frighten nonwhite people from coming at all.

Secondly, and this is why the Stephen Miller story is so important regardless of whether one cares about immigration or not, he is responsible for Donald Trump's most polarizing rhetoric. Miller is also responsible for why Trump was so combative in general. Stephen Miller is truly a master at pitting groups against one another by using wedge issues.

He understands that when you get people fighting with each other, whether it's based on their skin color or their political affiliation or whether they want to wear a mask during the coronavirus crisis, it creates media attention.

Both Miller and Trump believe that any media attention is good media attention, regardless of whether it is negative or positive. Those distractions also allowed Miller and Trump and the administration to push through their agenda. For example, the disastrous response to the coronavirus public health crisis. Instead of focusing on the distribution of masks and medical equipment, Trump and Miller divided the American people by closing the door to legal immigration and denying green cards.

For Stephen Miller, what does it mean to be "white"? Jewish people were not necessarily considered "white" in America until the 1950s or 1960s. Miller has taken that to the most grotesque extreme by becoming a white supremacist.

I believe that Miller would avoid the question. He tries to avoid the topic of race and skin color because he has been taught to launder white supremacist ideas through the language of "heritage," "economics" and "national security," as a way of making hate more palatable.

I believe that an honest answer to that question from Stephen Miller would be that whiteness to him is associated with positive values and ideals. Stephen Miller has been brainwashed to perceive people who are not white as being something evil and beastly. Stephen Miller's reading preferences are very powerful evidence of his beliefs.

Miller has endorsed the explicitly white supremacist novel "The Camp of the Saints."

In 2015, through his connections at Breitbart, he urged staff there to write articles showing parallels between that book and real life. "Camp of the Saints" is about the destruction of the "white world" by this horde of brown refugees who are described as animals and beasts and monsters. The book explicitly promotes hatred and violence against brown and Black people by white people as a way of ensuring the latter's survival. "The Camp of the Saints" is a book about the "white genocide" conspiracy theory, the same conspiracy theory that white terrorists have used to justify their acts of violence. We saw this in the horrible massacre in El Paso.

From a very young age, Stephen Miller would write things such as, "I'm Jewish, but Jewish people are a minority and so even though Jewish holidays are important to me, American holidays are much more important to me." Stephen Miller was very obsessed with the idea of being perceived as American. And for him to be American was associated with whiteness and the white male heroes he held dear, such as John Wayne. The types of movies and the types of people that Stephen Miller idolized were consistently associated with what he understood whiteness to be. To Miller, whiteness is associated with positive ideals. Miller is also obsessed with mobsters and organized crime and the idea that there is no rule of law apart from "might makes right." It all has to do with power for Stephen Miller.

Stephen Miller's obsession with organized crime figures suggests that he is a fragile and weak man who suffered some type of trauma or other harm to his sense of manhood. He is a remarkably dangerous but cartoon-like figure, an adult man who dresses up like a mafioso from the movies.

I spoke at length to one of his longest and closest friends who told me about how, as a child and then well into his 30s, Stephen Miller was obsessed with mobsters. One of his favorite movies was "Casino" with Robert De Niro.

Stephen Miller would go so far as dress up as De Niro's mobster character. Miller would actually go to Las Vegas dressed that way to celebrate his birthday and on vacations with friends and family. Dressing up like a mobster was not something he just did as a child. Stephen Miller actually incorporates the facial tics and hand gestures of the mafia figures he admires.

When Miller was in high school, he disavowed one of his closest friends because he was Hispanic. That signals to the type of man that he would later become.....

bktv 820 // gingrich on djt 2020 win (5 th bk on trump?!)

Blitz"

David Horowitz offered his thought on how President Trump can win…

yet another bk bktv

Mortality and Faith

David Horowitz

odd i recog no n in blurb?

Review

“A masterpiece of autobiography…[a] poignantly beautiful testament.” Author: Bruce Bawer Source: author of The Victims’ Revolution

“A big, chewy chomp into life's big, hard questions.” Author: Danusha Goska Source: author of God Through Binoculars

"Mortality and Faith bears witness to a truth that can be embraced by young and old, believers and non-believers, conservatives and liberals: in the face of life's many — sometimes Herculean — trials, the best way to infuse our lives with meaning 'is not to be daunted by the darkness, but to press on,' and to measure our impact in the world not by the faux immortality of renown, but by the light we bring to those around us.” Author: Mark Tapson Source: Editor, Screenwriter

About the Author

David Horowitz is a noted conservative commentator and New York Times bestselling author. He is the founder and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center in Los Angeles and the author of Big Agenda, Radical Son, and The Black Book of the American Left.

Product details

Hardcover: 256 pages

Publisher: Regnery Publishing (May 21, 2019)

ALEC’s Uncomfortable Relationship with Hate Speech

When the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and a broad coalition of 78 organizations urged ALEC’s corporate funders to cut ties with the bill mill following inflammatory comments by hatemonger David Horowitz at last year’s Annual Meeting, ALEC took steps to distance itself from his radical views. ALEC stated that it does “not share the perspective” Horowitz expressed at its 45th annual meeting, despite the fact that Horowitz received a glowing introduction and called ALEC’s CEO Lisa Nelson “my old friend.” Among other things, Horowitz proclaimed that public education “had been turned over to racist organizations like Black Lives Matter and terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Telecom giants and longtime ALEC backers Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast ultimately quit ALEC over Horowitz’s statements.

Nonetheless, ALEC has remained conspicuously silent about the dangerous and racist statements and ties of its legislative leaders and members Shea, King, Nearman, Stringer, and Keller.

update

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/ron-desantis-appearances-at-horowitz-events-even-worse-the-closer-you-look/

Knowing that Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis, who is challenging Democrat Andrew Gillum in Florida’s gubernatorial race, attended conferences hosted by right-wing author David Horowitz is concerning—and the closer one looks, the worse it gets. Not only did DeSantis appear on stage with the unsavory characters listed in Sunday’s investigative report by The Washington Post; the same conferences also hosted the founder of a violent far-right hate group, a Canadian alt-right entrepreneur and an anti-Muslim activist who has downplayed the horrors of the Holocaust.

DeSantis has recently faced public criticism for using language that many perceived to contain “dog-whistles,” or language that insinuates racial animosity. August 29 on Fox News, DeSantis remarkedFlorida should not elect Gillum, who is black, despite him being “articulate,” and said of the election that he hoped his state wouldn’t “monkey this up.”

On September 9, The Washington Post reported that DeSantis had spoken four times at conferences in Florida and South Carolina sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, including annual Restoration Weekend conferences where “hundreds of people gather to hear right-wing provocateurs such as Stephen K. Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and Sebastian Gorka sound off on multiculturalism, radical Islam, free speech on college campuses and other issues.” From The Washington Post:

Founded in 1988, the Freedom Center described its mission on a fundraising appeal: “We combat the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.”

Guest speakers at its conferences over the past five years have included Republican members of Congress, former governors Rick Perry of Texas and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, young conservative activists James O’Keefe and Ben Shapiro, and right-wing European politicians Nigel Farage and Geert Wilders.

[…]

Beyond the annual conferences, Horowitz has a record of inflammatory comments on social media. He was temporarily locked out of his Twitter account last month for a post involving Islam.

Right Wing Watch has been keeping an eye on Horowitz for more than a decade. We remember when he condemned the Conservative Political Action Conference because he believed it had been “compromised by radical Islamic influences,” and when he suggested that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and had decided to “marry a Jew so she can infiltrate our government.” He’s accused former President Barack Obama of wanting a “free ride” because he’s black, and claimed that the nation’s first African American president was anti-Semitic. Horowitz said that “there is no community more racist in America than the black community,” and saideverything Democrats do is “an attack on white people,” who Horowitz says should be thanked for ending slavery. The largest hate group in America, according to Horowitz, is the “anti-Trump hate group.”

Despite Horowitz’s lengthy history of inflammatory rhetoric and revisionist history, Restoration Weekend events have existed for years as a place where activists embedded in the fever swamps of right-wing politics go to pitch their causes in front of wealthy funders and political influencers. The event also manages to wrangle handfuls of politicians each year. In addition to the figures listed in the Washington Post report, past attendees include current Attorney General Jeff Sessions, senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller, Sens. Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson, and Reps. Louie Gohmert, Steve King, and Brian Mast.

But to best understand the nature of the Horwitz events, one should examine the speakers list and the audience members it attracts.

Prior guests include Andrew Torba, owner of Gab, a Twitter knock-off site that is populated with white supremacists who frequently encourage violence, who pitched his site at the 2017 conference. Others who have presented at Horowitz’s events include Dinesh D’Souza, a far-right propagandist who recently released a movie accusing liberals of being white supremacists, Gavin McInnes, the CRTV host and founder of Proud Boys, an organization recognized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group, and Laura Loomer, an anti-Muslim hatemonger who thinks that having lost her Twitter verified status is akin to being a victim of the Holocaust, and Ezra Levant, owner of the far-right Canadian outlet “The Rebel.” And while the Post mildly describes James O’Keefe, who also spoke at the 2016 Restoration Weekend event, as “a young conservative activist,” he actually traffics in deceptively edited videos designed to smear core constituencies of the Democrats, such as Planned Parenthood and labor unions.

The Washington Post article prompted Horowitz to pop into the conservative media sphere to offer his own rebuttal.

Yesterday, on the “Breitbart News Tonight” program hosted by SiriusXM radio, Horowitz said he knew why The Washington Post called him before their story: because he had been “slandered and defamed and libeled for decades.” Horowitz called Gillum a “corrupt, idiot leftist” that wants to make Florida a sanctuary state and to invite in “tens of thousands of criminals.” He also lamented that DeSantis received criticism for using “the word ‘monkey’ within a hundred yards of a black person.”

Horowitz told Breitbart that he had been a “fighter for civil rights” his whole life, and went on to describe liberals as “anti-white and racist.”

“They use this term, ‘white skin privilege,’ which takes away the efforts and achievements of whites and teaches black kids that the system is rigged against them, that people—that they succeed through privilege,” Horowitz said, adding his contention that black students who are accepted into college despite scoring lower than the “whites and the Asians that get in” actually experience “black skin privilege.”

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ron-desantis-david-horowitz-race-war

Sunday, the Washington Post detailed Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate Rep. Ron DeSantis' ties to an extremist group founded by far-right activist David Horowitz.

According to the Post, DeSantis was a speaker in at least four "Restoration Weekend" conferences hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) in 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 in Palm Beach, Florida, and Charleston, South Carolina.

At the 2015 engagement in Charleston, DeSantis said, "I just want to say what an honor it’s been to be here to speak ... David has done such great work and I’ve been an admirer. I’ve been to these conferences in the past but I’ve been a big admirer of an organization that shoots straight, tells the American people the truth and is standing up for the right thing."

At the DHFC events, DeSantis appeared alongside such figures as Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart writer who called feminism "cancer" and defended statutory rape; James Damore, the author of the "Google memo" that called women genetically inferior at computing jobs; and Charlie Kirk, the president of Turning Point USA, a far-right youth group that is engineering takeovers of student elections on college campuses.

Horowitz himself, once a prominent member of the New Left movement in the 1960s, has gone on to preach an ideology of hate against immigrants, Muslims, and people of color. He has said the Palestinian people are Nazis, compared Black Lives Matter to the KKK and al-Qaeda, claimed former President Barack Obama was "inviting the terrorists to behead more Americans," said that blacks "would still be slaves" if not for "the sacrifices of white soldiers," and argued that the "real race war" in America is against white people.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Horowitz has also used his online periodical, FrontPage Mag, to promote material from American Renaissance, a white supremacist publication, arguing that its founder Jared Taylor is "no more racist ... than Jesse Jackson and the NAACP."

DeSantis, a devoted supporter of President Donald Trump, has spent the last few weeks facing controversy for his statement that Florida should not "monkey this up" by electing Andrew Gillum, his Democratic opponent and the first African-American major party nominee for governor of Florida. He was also discovered to be the administrator of a racist Facebook group, which he claims he was added to without his knowledge.

-==

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/08/13/alec-in-disarray

It took about 10 minutes for a picture of Ronald Reagan to emerge on the screen at the opening ALEC lunch event I attended after my arrival in New Orleans for the 45th ALEC conference. I never did see a picture of President Donald Trump. As the hot mess of the Trump presidency unfolds, ALEC is struggling to both embrace the major things they love about him (deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy), while keeping a healthy distance from the chaos and corruption engulfing his presidency.

Trump certainly wasn’t ALEC’s first choice. Or second. Or third. During his campaign, Trump never came to kiss the golden ALEC ring, like ALEC acolytes Scott Walker and Mike Pence. As corruption charges continued to emerge against prominent Republicans, and the trial of Paul Manafort waged on, I didn’t hear one attendee legislator extoll the virtues of a Trump presidency. In fact, I heard almost nothing about Trump at all from the actual attendees. But the speakers and presenters were more representative of the Trump administration than last year.

Elaine Chow, the Secretary of Transportation came in and tried to give a speech but the ballroom lunch, sponsored by Marathon Petroleum, was so loud you could barely hear her. She did extoll the need to repeal California’s ability to set fuel emissions standards in favor of a weaker federal standard. Former Texas Policy Institute director Brooke Rollins, now a key Trump advisor, was next. She repeated the oft cited metaphor of Trump “draining the swamp” with the islands that emerge being the states, the “great laboratories of innovation.” Except Elaine Chow had just moments before argued to repeal a state’s right to set fuel emission standards.

And this revealed a major, continuing tension of ALEC. They want state’s rights, except when they don’t. The same contradiction is evident with their struggle with local control–sometimes they like it, sometimes they don’t. The defining factor is whether these levels of government promote the far-right ALEC agenda. It is getting harder and harder for ALEC to ignore these internal contradictions.

And there are visible cracks in ALEC world. Collectively, this was the messiest and least disciplined ALEC conference I have attended since 2013. In the energy task force, presentations were all over the place. A natural gas and electricity supplier went off script by openly discussing the billions in subsidies the oil and gas industry receives. There was silence in the crowded task force room, filled with fossil fuel producers and lobbyists.

Though some continued to insist that clean coal was possible and renewables unreliable and expensive, new ALEC members from renewable energy companies gave a compelling pitch about the declining price and high demand in the private market for wind and solar, especially in red, rural communities. After one of the renewable energy presenters mentioned that the wind energy sector was working with Congress to phase out subsidies (not something we would ever see from the fossil fuel industries), a skeptical executive asked if they would help get rid of states’ Renewable Portfolio Standards. The renewable energy guys had the perfect answer–it was up to the states. Remember, the laboratories of democracy? ALEC’s hostility to renewable energy and other green energy policies prompted infighting between industries and high-level departures, most recently by ALEC funder and board member ExxonMobil.

In the Health and Human Services task force, the Goldwater Institute and Buckeye Foundation were in a tizzy because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was still in existence and the left seemed to win that war, at least for now. How could it be, they moaned, when Republicans are in charge of EVERYTHING? They whined that the “debacle of last year was horrible” and that Congress wouldn’t touch another repeal with a 10-foot poll. So, 100 conservative groups came together to propose an alternative plan that guts the ACA, again. But the list was messy and confusing, and even the presenters seemed doubtful their plan would ever succeed.

But the biggest disaster I have ever seen at an ALEC conference was on a panel about the Convention of States (COS) project. COS is mobilizing in states to call an Article V Constitutional Convention for the purposes of amending the federal constitution by passing a balanced budget amendment, term-limits for federal judges, and who knows what else. One of the key speakers was right-wing provocateur David Horowitz, who has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of America’s most dangerous hatemongers” for his virulent anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant websites and speeches. After converting from being a Marxist decades ago, Horowitz now runs his own right-wing think tank, bankrolled to the tune of $3.4 million by the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Horowitz gained recent fame as a key mentor of Trump advisor Stephen Miller, the “the architect” of Trump’s family separation policy according to the Atlantic.

Horowitz gave two inflammatory speeches. Over breakfast he claimed that “at the K-12 level, school curricula have been turned over to racist organizations like Black Lives Matter and terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.” Later he commended Trump for not retreating after calling Rosie O’Donnell a “big fat pig.” Regarding Trump, Horowitz commented “so this guy showed what you can do if you have confidence and you are always on the offensive, which he always is.”

Horowitz’s other allegation is that “the left’s attitude towards the Constitution is they hate it.”

As justification that Democrats hate the Constitution Horowitz stated:

You know, one of the really vicious things about the left is how they attack the founding principles of this country. I’ve heard this from Democratic leaders, I remember Al Gore saying it, they say it all the time, that the Constitution is, you know, designed by slaveowners and it regards blacks as three-fifths of a human being. Well actually the word black, white, male, female those words do not exist in the Constitution. The whole identity politics is anti-Constitution.

Horowitz’s beef is that the South wanted to treat slaves as full human beings for population purposes so they would “count” towards congressional representation. The North, however, insisted on curtailing a more powerful South by counting slaves as three-fifths of a human. Of course, Horowitz ignores the fundamental fact that slavery was a barbaric Southern system, initially tolerated by the North and protected by the founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution who prioritized preserving the nation over treating people of color like human beings.

I have sat through many ALEC conferences. At times I have wanted to scream, tear my hair out, stomp away, or run away. I don’t hide who I am, but I don’t announce it with a megaphone. I am quiet. I am respectful. I am there to observe. I am there to plan the resistance to the harmful ALEC agenda that has swept, and continues to sweep, into my state and our country and erode our democracy. But at this moment, I couldn’t write about it, tweet about it, Facebook about it, and then sit there in it. I rose to the microphone and waited my turn. To my objection to the “big fat pig” comment, Horowitz replied “She is a big fat pig.” To my objection to Horowitz commending the South for wanting to treat slaves as full humans while perpetuating the barbaric institution of slavery, I was told by the panel moderator and COS director I had simply “misunderstood.”

ALEC is moving into dangerous territory. Despite the formidable infrastructure they have built over 45 years, their control of 33 state legislatures and their hordes of corporate cash that perpetually grease their wheels, the organization seems to be increasingly in disarray and in an identity crisis. While simultaneously distancing themselves from the chaos and corruption of President Trump, the reality is that they need him, and his hate-mongering, to further the foundation of their right-wing agenda–gutting the ACA and federal conservation standards, repealing workers’ rights, pushing down wages and privatizing public education.

And so the Horowitz’s of the world, who ALEC at least publicly has kept at a distance during my tenure, are now becoming part of the ALEC universe. Are ALEC supporters, including their corporate funders, willing to embrace this hate-mongering to continue to advance their corporate agenda?

Read more on ALEC’s agenda in NOLA and the bills being debated, here.

https://www.billwhittle.com/speaking/david-horowitz-freedom-center-palm-beach-fl

video also front page

https://www.billwhittle.com/content/about-bill

man from uncle logo?

Whittle is an American conservative blogger, political commentator, director, screenwriter, editor, pilot, author and the voice of The Common Sense Resistance. He is best known for his YouTube videos, one of which, "Three and a Half Days", has been viewed more than 2.5 million times. He is currently the host of Firewall, and co-hosts Right Angle with Stephen Green and Scott Ott. Bill's latest video series "We The People V2.0" made for young adults in cooperation with Turning Point USA. In addition, Whittle has interviewed a number of political personalities as a PJTV.com commentator.

He is a former National Review Online contributor and has been a guest on the Fox News Channel, The Dennis Miller Show, Sun TV, and national radio programs. His first book, Silent America: Essays from a Democracy at War, was published in 2004. Since 2009, Whittle has been a featured speaker at numerous universities, Republican, Tea Party, and high school events throughout the United States. Bill is a Fellow of The David Horowitz Freedom Center, and he contributes daily commentary for NRATV. His new daily talk show, Bill Whittle Live, premieres in January of 2017.

looks like nat ass picked up the tab? brandon robotically read intro? no idea who he is?

http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.tv/2018/06/22/david-horowitz-at-uc-santa-cruz/

he refs 10 yrs ago:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/zz/20080529/NEWS/805299882

Conservative David Horowitz relishes jeers from UC Santa Cruz students

By Kurtis Alexander - Sentinel Staff Writer

POSTED: 05/29/08, 12:01 AM PDT |0 COMMENTS

Before David Horowitz stepped into the lecture hall to face a wary crowd of UC Santa Cruz students this week, he was seeking assurances from university officials that campus police would have his back.

Such is life for a former liberal turned right-wing pundit who travels from campus to campus insulting nontraditional curriculum and chastising what he sees as a liberal bias at public universities.

His Web site named UC Santa Cruz the biggest culprit last year.

So Tuesday night, amid a skeptical student body, dozens of demonstrators and talk of a faculty/student protest on the other side of campus, Horowitz spent a good chunk of his hour-and-a-half presentation at the Jack Baskin Auditorium on the defensive.

"What you're witnessing here is a witch hunt, and I'm the witch," he told the standing-room-only crowd of about 200.

Horowitz, who often shrugged and sighed as he does on cable news stations, stood by his central platform -- that universities need a balance of political thinking -- and cast himself as the outsider willing to expose this unpopular truth.

But as reasonable as his points may have been, his jabs at some of the university's most cherished thinkers -- feminists, Marxists, Muslims -- seemed to alienate many in attendance and ultimately undercut the efficacy of his message.

"He was just ranting," said junior Maeghan Tanner.

Others, though, were shaken by Horowitz's statements. A handful of demonstrators banged on windows and held signs that read "Racist" and "Kill Whitey," references to his positions against affirmative action and reparations for slavery. Two audience members got in verbal spats with Horowitz and were shown the door by police.

The reactions seemed to only embolden the pundit.

"You people are being robbed of your education dollar," he said. "You can't get a good education if they're only telling you half the story."

His statements follow the argument of his well-known September 2007 article that called UCSC's curriculum "anything but academic" and the college "beyond any doubt the most radical university in the United States." In the article, Horowitz claimed popular professors like Angela Davis and Paul Ortiz spoon-feed students a liberal agenda, preventing students from seeing the bigger picture.

Across campus on Tuesday night, community studies professor Ortiz was holding a "teach-in" with about 75 others to counter the presence of the conservative.

"I would love to have the opportunity to debate him," said Ortiz on Wednesday. "But I don't think he's really interested in a debate ... it's more about entertainment and provoking people."

Ortiz, like many at the Baskin theater, took issue with how well Horowitz really knows UC Santa Cruz and whether his claims of bias on campus are legitimately researched.

Horowitz acknowledged that he'd only interviewed four or five students for last year's story about the university and that his methods were not those of U.S. News and World Report. He also said his observations of bias only apply to UC Santa Cruz's liberal arts programs, not its science and engineering divisions.

Horowitz appeared to win a few people over with these concessions. And similarly, the larger-than-life figure, by the end of the night, seemed impressed by the attention he was given by students.

"You've been a good audience," he said more than once.

Horowitz, who recently wrote the best-selling "Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America's War on Terror Before and After 9/11," has not always been a leading figure on the right.

Raised by parents who were card-carrying Communists, his early political life involved the 1960s anti-war movement and fundraising for the Black Panthers. These actions, he told the audience, he now, at 69, regrets.

"And," he said, "I was never as stupidly left as your professors."

Contact Kurtis Alexander at 706-3267 or kalexander@santacruzsentinel.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/17/steve-bannon-to-receive-courage-award-at-david-horowitzs-restoration-weekend/

Executive Chairman of Breitbart News and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon is being honored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center at its annual Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, FL, as a recipient of the Annie Taylor award.

The award, which will be handed out on Friday during the evening festivities, is named for Annie Edson Taylor, who was 63 when she became the first person to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel and survive. The honor is given to those who display great courage.

“The ideology of the progressive left and its Democratic Party is the antithesis of America’s constitutional system based on individual rights, individual accountability, and individual freedom,” Horowitz said. “This is an irreconcilable conflict. A nation cannot exist half collectivist and globalist, and half individualist and free.”

“In short, Steve Bannon’s war is a war for our country,” Horowitz said. “It is about patriotism — which Steve likes to call nationalism — and its enemies. It is about us. God bless him.”

Past award winners include radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, then-Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, Sheriff David Clark, and activist Phyllis Schlafly.

On Friday, Bannon will also deliver remarks during a segment entitled, “Trump: The President at War.” David Horowitz will be introducing him.

Other scheduled speakers include Jesse Watters, author Mark Steyn, author and commentator Anne Coulter, former advisor to President Donald Trump and now with the MAGA Coalition Sebastian Gorka, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), James Damore (the engineer fired from Google) and radio talk show host Tammy Bruce.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Annie Taylor award, David Horowitz, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Restoration Weekend, Steve Bannon

apr 2015 wa Ex (hmmn)

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has resigned as editor-in-chief of TruthRevolt, a non-profit news website site that he co-founded just two years ago.

Shapiro's departure from the young media group, which he launched in 2013 along with David Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, comes amid the group's decision to let go of many of its writers — and as Horowitz is hitting back against widespread rumors that the site is sinking.... Although Shapiro's name is prominently displayed on the website's homepage, it is nevertheless a "project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center." Horowitz himself owns the site.

"I am no longer associated with [TruthRevolt] and it's a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, fully owned and operated by them," Shapiro told the Washington Examiner's media desk when asked about the future of the website. "What David Horowitz chooses to do with the site after my resignation is out of my purview."

Shapiro told the Examiner that he formally resigned last week, but held off announcing it until he and others involved had time to work out his exit.

He said that he's focused right now on an upcoming project for the 2016 presidential election, adding that his exit from TruthRevolt has freed him from the restrictions of the group's non-profit status.

"There's only so much that you can do with a 501(c)(3)," he said.

Since January, at least 10 writers have been cut loose, Shapiro told the Examiner.

Soon-to-be-former TruthRevolt writers, some of whom found out just last week that they would no longer be writing for the site, told the Examinerthat they were shocked when they were told via emails written by former executive editor Jeremy Boreing that they had been let go.

"One day, I was just sitting around and I opened up my email," one outgoing writer said. "I have no idea if they're just getting rid of me because I'm disagreeable or because they actually are funding something. Beats the heck out of me. I haven't got a guess. I have zero idea."

There also appears to be confusion over the website's future.

Boreing seemingly suggested in several notes to his staff that the website would be shuttered on May 1, according to emails obtained by the Examiner.

"Writing with bad news. Effective May 1, TruthRevolt will no longer be a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. They've decided to pull the plug," read one such email written by Boreing.

The note to staff continued, explaining that "[Ben Shapiro] and I are trying to buy the site, and if we do we may circle back with you and try to sign you back on, but for now, please consider this official notice that May 1 will be the last day."

A separate email written by the former executive editor read, "May 1 is the official end of business."

Boreing told the Examiner Thursday that he is no longer associated with TruthRevolt or the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Horowitz maintained in a conversation with the Examiner that there are no plans to "pull the plug" on the site, that TruthRevolt will continue to produce new content and that all claims to the contrary are simply false.

"We certainly have no plans to close the site down. None. And we haven't pulled any plugs," he said. "Some people have been let go. But we're not letting the site go."

He added, "We're keeping some people on and I expect it to be a really, really good continuation at TruthRevolt."

The new TruthRevolt editor-in-chief will be Mark Tapson, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Asked whether the site would continue to run even after losing its editor-in-chief and many of its writers, Shapiro repeated that he no longer has anything to do with the website and that it's all up to Horowitz.

Launched in 2013, TruthRevolt was intended to act as a conservative counterargument to David Brock's left-wing, pro-Clinton Media Matters for America.

The site's stated goal is to "unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases."

MMA 2013

Conservatives have launched TruthRevolt, a website which aims to "unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases." The history of two main TruthRevolt figures, Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz, suggests the site won't prioritize accuracy or refrain from smears.

David Horowitz Launches TruthRevolt As The "Anti-Media Matters"

TruthRevolt Wants To "Unmask Leftists In The Media For Who They Are, Destroy Their Credibility With The American Public, And Devastate Their Funding Bases." From the mission statement posted on its website:

The media win elections for the left. It's not the left's competence in office; leftists have demonstrated none. It's not the left's ideas; leftist ideas have failed everywhere they have been tried. The left wins for one simple reason: leftists control the information distribution system in the United States. And they use that system to pillory conservatives heartless bigots intent on harming the poor and targeting minorities.

The media must be destroyed where they stand. That is our mission at Truth Revolt. The goal of TruthRevolt is simple: unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases.

TruthRevolt focuses on high-profile media members, and holding them accountable. But TruthRevolt does not stop there. TruthRevolt understands that all politics is local, and therefore looks to fight leftist propaganda at the local level, monitoring local newspapers, television and radio. TruthRevolt also seeks to stop the left dead in its tracks when it comes to training the next generation, our college campuses.

TruthRevolt works to make advertisers and funders aware of the leftist propaganda they sponsor - and bringing social consequences to bear to create pressure on such advertisers and funders. [TruthRevolt.org, accessed 10/7/13]

TruthRevolt Bills Itself As The "Anti-Media Matters." From an article about an interview with TruthRevolt editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro:

Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125 with Breitbart News Executive Chairman and host Stephen K. Bannon, Shapiro said those who "bankroll" and enable the mainstream media to lie and "push their agenda" must "be made aware that the American public is not going to stand for this bullshit."

He simply said there has to be a "price to pay for that."

Shapiro said TruthRevolt will be billed as the "anti-Media Matters." He emphasized that Media Matters has tried to destroy the careers of conservatives who are truth-tellers and TruthRevolt will "turn that around and go after the liars of the left-wing" and the mainstream media. [Breitbart.com, 10/7/13]

TruthRevolt Is A Project Of The David Horowitz Freedom Center. From a post on the David Horowitz Freedom Center website:

Today, the David Horowitz Freedom Center is launching TruthRevolt, a much-needed campaign to expose the hypocrisies and mendacities of the leftwing media. A brainchild of Ben Shapiro, TruthRevolt is a groundbreaking initiative to engage in investigative journalism about the leftwing media figures who produce radical ideology masquerading as "news" and feed it to the American public as objective journalism.

TruthRevolt differs from other organizations in its action orientation. It is determined not only to confront the leftwing media, but also to impact their profits. By enlisting thousands of conservatives to aggressively call on these media sponsors of leftwing propaganda to cease their sponsorship of destructive views and radicalized demagogues, TruthRevolt will put pressure on the advertisers who support such programming to pull their sponsorship.

"The far left site Media Matters, run by self-confessed liar David Brock, has achieved enormous success by using the power of astroturfed boycotts and campaigns against conservative media figures, targeting their funders and advertisers," commented Freedom Center Chairman David Horowitz. "TruthRevolt will fight fire with fire, working to make advertisers and funders aware of the malicious propaganda they sponsor and create." [HorowitzFreedomCenter.org, accessed 10/7/13]

Ben Shapiro, TruthRevolt's Editor-in-Chief

Shapiro Credulously Reported That Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Received Money From Non-Existent "Friends Of Hamas." Citing "Senate sources," Shapiro claimed that then-nominee for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel may have received money from a group called "Friends of Hamas." It was later revealed that "Friends of Hamas" does not exist. [Media Matters, 3/3/13; Daily Beast, 10/7/13]

Shapiro: "Of Course Hitler Was A Left-Winger." [Premiere Radio, The Sean Hannity Show, 3/7/13, via Media Matters]

Shapiro: "Arabs Like To Bomb Crap And Live In Open Sewage." Shapiro tweeted about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict: "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock." [Twitter, 9/27/10, via Media Matters]

Shapiro: Obama Administration Is "Openly Anti-Semitic" And Rahm Emanuel "Is A Kapo." Shapiro claimed in a syndicated column that the Obama administration was "openly anti-Semitic" and called Rahm Emanuel, then-White House chief of staff, a "kapo," a term that refers to Nazi concentration camp prisoners who aided the Nazis. [Media Matters, 4/28/10]

Shapiro: Obama Was "An Ideological Muslim" And Hillary Clinton Was "An Ideological Lesbian." In a post on Breitbart.com, Shapiro claimed that Obama was not an actual Muslim but "an ideological Muslim in the same way Hillary Clinton was an ideological lesbian in her college days." [Breitbart.com, 9/21/11, via Media Matters]

David Horowitz, Freedom Center Chairman

Horowitz Claimed There Was A Muslim Brotherhood "Infiltrat[or]" At CPAC. At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference, Horowitz attacked conservative activists Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist, claiming that Khan, with Norquist's aid, "infiltrat[ed]" CPAC, the Bush White House and the conservative movement on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. [David Horowitz's CPAC speech, 2/12/11, via Media Matters]

Horowitz: It's A "Fact" That Clinton Aide Huma Abedin Is Connected To "Nazi Organization" Muslim Brotherhood. The allegation that Abedin is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood has been disproven and also condemned by both Republican and Democratic leaders. [Fox News, America Live, 9/19/12, via Media Matters; Media Matters, 7/31/12]

Horowitz Claims He's Proven "That There Are Only A Couple Of Degrees Of Separation Between Anybody On The Left And The Terrorists." [The Washington Times, 3/24/05, via Media Matters]

Horowitz: "Blacks Are The Human Shields Of The Democratic Party." Horowitz called former President Jimmy Carter an "anti-Semite" and said "blacks are the human shields of the Democratic Party." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 9/16/09, via Media Matters]

Horowitz: Professors "Are Recruiting For Radical Parties, Terrorist Supporting Parties, No Question." Horowitz claimed that university professors are "recruiting for radical parties, terrorist supporting parties, no question." [Fox News, Hannity, 9/03/10, via Media Matters]

Horowitz's Book The New Leviathan Was Filled With Numerous Errors, Distortions, And Falsehoods. [Media Matters, 6/11/12]

Horowitz's Book The Shadow Party Featured Doctored Quotes And Factual Errors. [Media Matters, 8/2/06]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?436716-1/the-black-book-american-left

11/2017

The Black Book of the American Left David Horowitz talked about his book The Black Book of the American Left, in which he examines the left’s impact on America’s universities and colleges.

intro:

GOOD EVENING. IT SHOULD HARDLY COME AS A SURPRISE TO ANYONE IN THIS ROOM THAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HAVE BECOME FLASH POINTS FOR THE MOST HEATED CULTURE WAR CONFLICTS OF THE DAY. UNIVERSITIES ARE NOW BESIDES A FAR LEFT-WING INDOCTRINATION.ANARCHIC VIOLENCE AGAINST STUDENTS ADMINISTRATORS LITERALLY UNDER SIEGE FROM RADICALIZED MINORITY STUDENTS DEMANDING SOCIAL JUSTICE PAYBACK PAYBACK, STUDENTS WAILING ABOUT THE RETREATING INTO SEGREGATED SPACES. OUR FORMER INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING HAVE DEGENERATED INTO CIRCUSES OF MILITANT IRRATIONALITY AND RADICALISM. HOW DID IT COME TO THIS?

TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION YOU CAN DO NO BETTER THAN TO READ DAVID HOROWITZ BOOK TO LEFT IN UNIVERSITY VOLUME EIGHT IN THE LATEST EDITION TO A SERIES OF COLLECTIVE DESK WITH THE CONSERVATIVE WRITINGS INCLUDING "THE BLACK BOOK OF THE AMERICAN LEFT" INCLUDING ESSAYS FROM 1993 TO 2010 AND ADDRESSES WHAT DAVID HOROWITZ DESCRIBED AS ONE OF THE UNDERAPPRECIATED TRAGEDIES OF OUR TIME THE CAMPAIGN OF THE LEFT TO SUPPORT THE CURRICULA OF COLLEGIATE INSTITUTIONS AND TRANSFORM ENTIRE SCHOOLS AND DEPARTMENTS INTO DOCTRINAL TRAINING CENTERS FOR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CAUSES FOR THIS CAMPAIGN ARGUABLY HAS DONE MORE TO STEER AMERICA TOWARDS THE LEFT THE LEFT GOAL OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF THIS COUNTRY THAN ANY OTHER STRATEGY AND CULTURAL MARXISM.

IF THE "CHRONICLE" SAID CAMPAIGNER FOR NEXT QUARTER CENTURY AND GAVE OF DAVID'S EFFORTS TO BRING POLITICAL NEUTRALITY AND INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY TO COLLEGE CLASSROOMS. YOU PARTY NOW DAVID HOROWITZ IS THE AUTHOR OF TOO MANY BOOKS AND ARTICLES TO NAME ALL OF THEM ESSENTIAL READING FOR UNDERSTANDING THE RADICAL LEFT AND WAGING WAR AGAINST IT BUT AMONG THE MINOR TIMES BESTSELLERS RADICAL SON UNHOLY ALLIANCE AND MOST RECENTLY BIG AGENDA PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLAN TO SAVE AMERICA.

IF YOU HAVE HEARD ME INTRODUCE DAVID BEFORE YOU'VE NO DOUBT HEARD THE CALL AND THE LEFT MOST HATED APOSTATE BECAUSE HE KNOWS THEM BETTER THAN THEY KNOW THEMSELVES AND THAT MAKES HIM AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THEM AND INVALUABLE TO US. PLEASE WELCOME THE AUTHOR OF THE LEFT AND THE UNIVERSITY AND THE FOUNDER OF THE FREEDOM CENTER, DAVID HOROWITZ. [APPLAUSE]

...

[protest vid]

...THAT WAS SEVEN MINUTES INTO MY TALK AND DIED SAID AT THE OUTSET OF THE TALK WHEN I WAS A RADICAL AT HER GLEE AND COLUMBIA IN THE 60s I ALWAYS WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAD TO SAY BECAUSE I FELT THAT WOULD MAKE ME A BETTER RADICAL. I WOULD HAVE AN ARGUMENT. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE. THE GREATEST AMERICAN TRAGEDY OF MY LIFETIME IS THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM BY PROGRESSIVES AND ITS CONVERSION INTO AN INDOCTRINATION AND THE RECRUITMENT CENTER FOR THIS THEOLOGICAL LEFT.

THIS BOOK THAT I'VE WRITTEN, THE LEFT IN UNIVERSITY IS THE FIFTH BOOK THAT I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY. THE PROBLEM WHICH HAS BEEN 50 YEARS IN THE MAKING AND IT HAS A SPECIAL INTEREST BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DISPATCHES FROM THE WAR FRONT. WHAT I WROTE ENGAGING IN A BATTLE TO RESTORE ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO THE UNIVERSITY, TO RESTORE THE MODERN RESEARCH UNIVERSITY TO BASICALLY OUR LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES IN THE PRINCIPLES OF IT. I BASE MY CAMPAIGN WHICH WAS FOR AN ACADEMIC GOAL OF RIGHTS FOR STUDENTS ON THE VERY FAMOUS ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS WHICH THESE DAYS IS RUN BY STALINISTS WHO ARE NOT HAPPY WITH MY PROPOSALS.

I TOOK THEIR 19 TEEN STATEMENT WHICH WAS REALLY THE STATEMENT THAT CREATED THE MODERN RESEARCH UNIVERSITY BASING IT ON SCIENTIFIC PENCILS AND SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES. THAT IS YOU HAVE A HYPOTHESIS AND YOU TRY TO TEST IT BY EVIDENCE AND OF COURSE IN A LIBERAL ARTS FIELD HUMANITY, SOCIOLOGY POLITICAL SCIENCE THERE IS NO WAY IT'S CONDUCTING THE KIND OF EXPERIMENTS THE SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY DO SO EVERY AND ISSUE IS CONTROVERSIAL 1915 STATEMENT SAID IT'S NOT THE PLACE OF A FACULTY MEMBER IN A DEMOCRACY TO INDOCTRINATE HIS OR HER STUDENTS BUT TO PRESENT THEM WITH DIVERGENT OPINIONS IN A FAIR-MINDED WAY BECAUSE THE TASK THE TEACHER AND THE DEMOCRACY IS TO TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO THINK NOT TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK. WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS IS THAT THE POLITICAL LEFT AND I SUSPECT A LOT OF MY GENERATION OF RADICALS STAYED IN THE UNIVERSITIES AND PURSUED ACADEMICS TO AVOID THE DRAFT, TO AVOID FIGHTING COMMUNISM WHICH THEY SYMPATHIZE WITH. ..

See all on BOOK TV COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES LIBERALS One-Party Classroom

APRIL 1, 2009

One-Party Classroom

David Horowitz talked about the book he wrote with Jacob Laksin, One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top…

Big Agenda

FEBRUARY 16, 2017

Big Agenda

David Horowitz talked about his book Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America, in which he outlines the…

Progressive Racism

MAY 13, 2016

Progressive Racism

David Horowitz talked about his book, Progressive Racism, about the left’s impact on racism in America.

The New Leviathan

JUNE 22, 2012

The New Leviathan

David Horowitz argues that the Left has used their finances to promote a progressive agenda that has transformed the…

Series: Black Book of the American Left (Book 8)

Hardcover: 256 pages

Publisher: Second Thoughts Books (October 2, 2017)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267983/left-university-david-horowitz

Below is David Horowitz's introduction to his new book, The Left in the University, which is volume 8 of The Black Book of the American Left, a multi-volume collection of David Horowitz's conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. (Order HERE.) We encourage our readers to visit BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-8 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.

The eighth volume of the series of my writings called The Black Book of the American Left is about one of the underappreciated tragedies of our times: the successful campaign of the left to subvert the curricula of collegiate institutions and transform entire academic departments and schools—including Schools of Education—into doctrinal training centers for their social and political causes. This transformation of the educational system in turn has underpinned the steady dismantling of America’s social contract, which has been the ongoing project of the left since the 1960s.

This is actually the sixth book I have written on the subject of the transformation and its destructive consequences.

In addition to whatever analytic contributions are made in these pages, they provide a compendium of anecdotal evidence about the manner in which progressive activists have taken control of liberal arts curricula and reverted them to their 19th-century origins as instruments of religious indoctrination. The new doctrines differ from their 19th-century predecessors in that they are political and secular, having been shaped by Marxism and its derivatives. These “progressive” doctrines, however, share with traditional religions the same impulse to redeem a fallen world and to suppress what they regard as hostile—therefore heretical—ideas in the name of human progress.

One can measure the current corruption of the academic profession through a summary observation about the views of academic historians that was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Historical Society. The summary appears in an article written by Jennifer Delton, a tenured history professor at Skidmore College—a top-tier liberal arts school. It describes a purported orthodoxy in historians’ views of Cold War anti-communism.

According to Delton, this historical consensus regards Cold War anti-communism as an irrational phenomenon and a species of political persecution. [// bernstein ~ mcclean]Equally as striking as this problematic characterization is Delton’s assumption that an orthodoxy about so controversial an issue can and should be a normal condition of academic scholarship. Here are her words: “However fiercely historians disagree about the merits of American communism [sic!], they almost universally agree that the post-World War II red scare signaled a rightward turn in American politics.

The consensus is that an exaggerated, irrational fear of communism, bolstered by a few spectacular spy cases, created an atmosphere of persecution and hysteria that was exploited and fanned by conservative opportunists such as Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy. . . . We may add detail and nuance to this story, but this, basically, is what we tell our students about post-World II anti-communism, also known as McCarthyism.” (emphasis added)

In other words, it is the professional opinion of this tenured professor, the editors of the Journal of the Historical Society and, apparently, academic historians generally that concern about a domestic communist threat during the Cold War was equivalent to “McCarthyism”—a witch-hunting mania about imaginary demons.4

This, according to Delton, is what academic historians “tell our students,” and not as mere opinion but as a historical consensus, and thus an academic fact. This consensus exists, apparently, in the face of easily established, indisputable facts that refute it: the fact that McCarthy was censured by an anti-communist Senate, including senators who sat on his committee; the fact that he was opposed by an anti-communist president, Dwight Eisenhower, and by anti-communist liberals such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote one of the seminal anti-communist books of the period, The Vital Center; or the proven fact that the federal government had been penetrated by communist agents at the time, and at the highest levels.

It goes without saying that no conservative scholar could agree with the conclusion of Professor Delton and her colleagues, and thus no conservative scholar could be readily regarded by the consensus she describes as a reasonable member of her profession.

To ideologues like Delton, the contents of this volume will seem an extreme view of what has taken place in American liberal arts colleges and graduate institutions. But to recognize the intellectual corruption of the contemporary academy is hardly what is extreme; what is extreme is the politicized state of academic discourse, the confusion of scholarship with propaganda, and therefore the widespread debasement of the academic enterprise. What is extreme is the general comfort level of the academic community with this travesty of scholarship and, worse, with the practice of indoctrinating students in the classroom.

The ramifications of this reversion to doctrinal instruction and pre-scientific standards of scholarship have been destructive not only to higher education but to society at large. Since collegiate institutions are the training grounds for all professions, this corruption has adversely affected a widespread array of policies, both foreign and domestic; it has warped cultural attitudes towards race and gender (see volumes 5 and 6 in this series); and it has intruded political biases into such civically crucial professions as the law, journalism and secondary school education.

The contents of this volume were immediately inspired by a campaign I conducted to counter these trends and promote a restoration of the academic values associated with the modern research university, in particular the identification of scientific standards of inquiry with academic professionalism.5 The goal of the campaign, which lasted for roughly seven years and ultimately failed, could also be viewed as an attempt to restore a professional standard appropriate to education in a democratic society—that teachers should teach students how to think and not tell them what to think. This standard was established in a famous “Declaration on the Principles of Academic Tenure and Academic Freedom” issued by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915, and until recently verbally embraced by all reputable academic institutions.

The campaign I organized to defend those principles was ferociously opposed by the tenured left, most strikingly by the very organization that had devised the original standard: the American Association of University Professors, whose governance had fallen into radical hands. Although my campaign failed, it revealed the extent of the AAUP’s defection from its original purposes and its determination to protect a new professorial “right”—the “right” of faculty to indoctrinate their students. This was made indisputably clear in the AAUP’s opposition to a crucial passage of the Declaration that I regularly cited in my campaign, and which had been adopted verbatim by Penn State University as its academic freedom policy. There can be no better introduction to the present volume than to recount the fate of this policy at the hands of the AAUP and its academic agents.

Known as HR 64, the Penn State policy read: “It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. The faculty member is expected to train students to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials, which they need if they are to think intelligently. Hence, in giving instruction upon controversial matters the faculty member is expected be of a fair and judicial mind, and to set forth justly, without supersession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators.”

The AAUP’s attack on this specific policy was launched in the winter of 2010, just after events in Pennsylvania convinced me of the futility of my reform efforts. Legislative hearings to inquire into the state of academic freedom in Pennsylvania—hearings in which I played a seminal role—were effectively subverted by the AAUP and the teacher unions, while the Republican Party and conservative groups that should have supported the reform effort sat on the sidelines. Without their active involvement there was little more that I could do.

The AAUP’s attack was led by its leftist president, Cary Nelson, whose book No University Is an Island, was published that December. In his book Nelson assaulted me personally and followed his assault with an attack on the Penn State policy I had championed. Nelson described the Penn State policy on academic freedom as an attempt to restrict faculty speech and curtail academic freedom.

This was the same Orwellian position the AAUP had advanced throughout the controversy; but it was the first time anyone had made that argument specifically against the Penn State policy I had praised. Nelson and I had debated each other on several occasions, so he was thoroughly familiar with my campaign and the fact that I had made HR 64 and the 1915 Declaration its cornerstones. His attack also targeted the “Academic Bill of Rights” I had attempted to persuade universities to adopt, which was an attempt to codify the principles of the 1915 Declaration. Nelson did not merely criticize the Penn State policy but condemned it as “especially bad” and an example of “McCarthy era rhetoric.” His objection to the policy was that it denied professors the right to advance their political agendas in the classroom.

According to Nelson: “Like Horowitz, Penn State failed at the time to conceptualize the sense in which all teaching and research is fundamentally and deeply political.” This was a candid admission of the anti-academic agendas of both Nelson and the AAUP. To them, “academic freedom” meant a license for professors to use their classrooms as political platforms to indoctrinate their students.

Political agendas aside, Nelson’s smear of the Penn State academic freedom policy and my efforts made no logical sense. Far from seeking to suppress dissenting ideas, the 1915 Declaration, the Penn State policy and my Academic Bill of Rights stipulated that faculty were obligated to present conflicting opinions on controversial matters in a fair-minded manner. In other words, they were statements in behalf of intellectual diversity. Neither document denied professors the right to express their views, or to freely draw conclusions from their research. They did require them to observe a professional standard in the classroom; in particular, to be mindful that students were in the process of forming their opinions and should be allowed to do so. It was only in this sense that it restricted professors’ “freedom of speech”—specifically the “right” to use their classrooms for political attitudinizing. But this was no more restrictive than the codes governing doctors or lawyers in their professional settings. And it was in accord with the views of the leading academic authority on academic freedom: Robert C. Post, dean of the Yale Law School.

In dismissing Penn State’s policy, Nelson suggested that the AAUP had “more nuanced” methods of determining such matters than the Penn State officials, and that “what Penn State ended up with is nothing less than thought control.” The absurdity of this was transparent. To require professors to present divergent views to their students, and to do so in a fair-minded manner, was hardly “thought control.”

Shortly after Nelson’s book appeared, the Faculty Senate at Penn State went into action to implement his agenda, voting to formally eviscerate policy HR 64 and rewrite it to permit the abuses it was designed to prevent. Specifically, the Penn State Faculty Senate removed the following sentence: “It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects.” The Senate then rewrote the policy, restricting professorial fairness to those controversial viewpoints that were part of the discourse of the academic professions—professions that had effectively purged themselves of non-leftist viewpoints. The revised version read: “Faculty members are expected to present information fairly, and to set forth justly, divergent opinions that arise out of scholarly methodology and professionalism.” (emphasis added) In other words, practically speaking, only the divergent opinions of left-wing academics need be presented fairly and justly.

Other opinions—notably conservative opinions—which were not part of existing “scholarly methodology and professionalism,” would not be covered by this fairness requirement. The instigator of these changes, Cary Nelson, applauded the revision in a statement that made no sense at all: “Penn State had one of the most restrictive and troubling policies limiting intellectual freedom in the classroom that I know of. It undermined the normal human capacity to make comparisons and contrasts between different fields and between different cultures and historical periods.”

Incoherent as this explanation was, Nelson had successfully engineered a policy that formally permitted professors to indoctrinate their students. This remains the policy of the AAUP and faculty throughout the liberal arts academy today. In short, I had to face the reality that my seven year campaign to restore the concept of academic freedom as defined by the AAUP in its 1915 Declaration had led to the formal repudiation of its principles by the same organization.

Part I of the present volume is an essay selected because it frames the subject, a practice I have adopted in previous volumes. It is an edited version of the introduction to The Professors, a book I wrote in 2005 about the unprofessional classroom attitudes of over 100 prominent professors. In the controversy generated by the book, the substance of this introduction was completely ignored. Not a single response from my academic opponents addressed the substantive critiques contained in its text.

Part II recounts my experiences on college campuses in the five years preceding the creation of the Academic Bill of Rights, along with my observations regarding the decline of academic discourse under pressures from the academic left.

Part III describes my campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights. This document was a codification of the principles set forth in the 1915 Declaration. It was inspired by the idea that if professors have an obligation to act professionally in the classroom, then students have a right to expect a professional instruction; in particular, to hear fair-minded presentations of divergent views on controversial issues, along with the freedom to draw their own conclusions.

Part IV continues the account of the campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights and describes the attacks against it by the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, and faculty senates like the one at Penn State.

Part V recounts the controversies surrounding two of the books I wrote, The Professors and Indoctrination U., and more of my failed attempts to persuade the academic community of their obligation to present contested issues as controversial and to observe a professional decorum in the classroom.

I have concluded the text with an epilogue containing a proposal for reforming universities and re-establishing standards of instruction in the classroom. I wrote this proposal in 2010, before the AAUP eviscerated the Penn State academic freedom policy. I did not publish it then because I knew that any proposal associated with me would be dead in the water because of the war the AAUP had declared on all my efforts, however modest and reasonable. I publish it now because I have given up any hope that universities can institute such a reform. The faculty opposition is too devious and too strong; and even more importantly there is no conservative will to see such reforms enacted. Therefore there seems to be no harm in publishing the document now, and it does serve to clarify my goals in undertaking my campaign.

ABOUT DAVID HOROWITZ

[For Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov's essay on David Horowitz's life and work, click here.]

David Horowitz is the author of Big Agenda: President Trump's Plan to Save America, now in its tenth week on The New York Times’ best-seller list.

Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”

Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and author of many books and pamphlets published over the last twenty years. Among them: Hating Whitey; Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left; The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America; and The End of Time.

Horowitz is now publishing The Black Book of the American Left, a multi volume collection of his conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. The Left In Power: Clinton To Obama, the seventh volume of this projected nine volume work, has just appeared. (For information on The Black Book of the American Left, click here.)

David's latest book is Big Agenda, which has been on the NYT best sellers list for over 10 weeks. (to order click here)

http://www.scottgsherman.com/profiles/davidhorowitz.php

DAVID HOROWITZ'S LONG MARCH

(The Nation, July 3, 2000)

On October 19, 1959, Frederick Moore Jr., a freshman at the University of California, Berkeley, climbed the steps of Sproul Hall and began a hunger strike to protest the university's compulsory military-training requirement through ROTC. "I am a conscientious objector," Moore declared. "I object to killing and any action aiding war." David Horowitz, a 20-year-old graduate student in the English department, was so moved by Moore's stance that he volunteered to defend him at a campus debate. Horowitz's opponent, a young military veteran, insisted that ROTC's detractors simply lacked the guts to fight the Communists; Horowitz disagreed. "Wearing a uniform with a million other guys is easy; hiding behind a gun is even easier," he proclaimed. "All you do is what you're told; you and a million others." Concluded Horowitz, "Was not patriotism of this sort questionable?"

Many years later, in the fall of 1987, Horowitz received a phone call from the office of Elliott Abrams, an Assistant Secretary of State. It was time to fight the Communists. "Are you willing to serve your country?" one of Abrams's young assistants jauntily inquired. A few weeks later, Horowitz found himself in Managua, Nicaragua, where, at the expense of US taxpayers, he offered tactical advice to anti-Sandinista labor unions, politicians and journalists, and, in the dining room of the Intercontinental Hotel, thundered, "For the sake of the poorest peasants in this Godforsaken country, I can't wait for the contras to march into this town and liberate it from these fucking Sandinistas!"

These days, not much remains of the student who stood up to defend a conscientious objector in the twilight of the Eisenhower era. The years have transformed Horowitz into a steely gladiator, an indefatigable pugilist in the culture wars, the right's very own Ahab. "Lapsed radicals like ourselves are always condemned to regard the left as their Great White Whale," Horowitz and Peter Collier confessed in their 1991 anthology, Deconstructing the Left. "This book is a record of our sightings of the beast. We may not yet have set the final harpoon, but we have given chase."

Throughout the nineties, Horowitz spent much of his time combating "political correctness" in American universities. His weapon in that crusade was Heterodoxy, the tabloid-sized monthly he founded with Collier in 1992 and which, Horowitz has written, "is meant to have the feel of a samizdat publication inside the gulag of the PC university." But the spirit of Havel and Michnik is noticeably absent; Heterodoxy is a garish, surreal compendium of Horowitz's obsessions and demons, neatly packaged for right-wing consumption. There are lists ("The Ten Wackiest Feminists on Campus"), odd cartoons (Karl Marx in drag) and admiring letters from the next generation ("I am 11 years old and I cannot thank you enough for publishing this wonderful paper...my schoolmates are a bunch of feminist, liberal, PC, vegetarian multiculturalists"). In 1993, when the literary critic Catharine Stimpson told a reporter that frequent attacks in Heterodoxy had transformed her into the magazine's "centerfold," the editors replied with a pornographic pastiche of her in its April 1993 issue, under the caption "ms. april."

But the PC "gulag" is just one of Horowitz's targets. His self-appointed mandate is to sniff out and expose leftist chicanery--real and imagined--wherever it may exist. He is a busy man. "One has to stigmatize the left and segregate it," Horowitz told Insight magazine in 1989. Last year, when the anthropologist David Stoll challenged the veracity of Rigoberta Menchú's autobiography, Horowitz rushed to purchase advertisements in six college newspapers announcing: rigoberto menchu nobel laureate and marxist terrorist now exposed as an intellectual hoax.

Such crusades have hardly damaged his career. He has a column in the online magazine Salon, he contributes Op-Ed pieces to leading newspapers and rarely a day goes by when he doesn't appear on television or talk-radio. He is currently involved in efforts to create a conservative talk show on PBS. His funders admire that tireless spirit. "He's an extremely articulate man and a very determined fighter. I think he brings a great deal of intellectual power and energy to his work," says Michael Joyce, president of the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, which has given Horowitz more than $3.5 million since 1988.

Lately, Horowitz has stepped into a new role: Republican Party theoretician. His pamphlet The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight to Win, is causing a stir on the right: Thirty-five state Republican Party chairmen have endorsed it, the Heritage Foundation sent 2,300 copies to conservative activists and House majority whip Tom DeLay provided copies to every Republican Congressional officeholder, with a cover note praising its contents. On April 5, Senators Arlen Specter, Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, plus a dozen members of the House, hosted a soiree for Horowitz in Washington, at which $40,000 was raised for his activities.

In addition to political alchemy, Horowitz has another new fixation: race, exemplified by his recent book, Hating Whitey and Other Progessive Causes. Last August, in a piece titled "A Real, Live Bigot," Time columnist Jack White took issue with an essay Horowitz wrote for Salon. In that piece, Horowitz excoriated the NAACP's class-action suit against gun manufacturers and wondered, "Am I alone in seeing this as an absurd act of political desperation by the civil rights establishment? What's next? Will Irish-Americans sue whiskey distillers, or Jews the gas company?" White, who is African-American, retorted that Horowitz's column was so repellent that it "made the anti-black rantings of Dinesh D'Souza seem like models of fair-minded social analysis."

When you enter Horowitz's office, in a tony highrise on the West Side of Los Angeles, the first thing you notice on the wall is the New York Times's framed and weather-beaten front page for March 6, 1953. STALIN DIES AFTER A 29-YEAR RULE, reads the six-column headline. Welcome to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Horowitz's burgeoning empire, which generates a remarkable range of products and services. There is Heterodoxy. There is his daily online journal, FrontPageMagazine, whose features include a "Left Alert" ("Chevy Chase Says Socialism Works" was one recent item) and an "Intellectual Rogue's Gallery" with unflattering articles about Edward Said, Noam Chomsky and Eric Alterman. There is a publishing imprint, Second Thoughts Books, which brings forth titles like P.J. O'Rourke's Why I Am Not a Conservative, pamphlets like Liberal Racism: The College Student's Common-Sense Guide to Radical Ideology and How to Fight It, and collections of essays by...David Horowitz.

That's not all: There is Horowitz's legal arm, the Individual Rights Foundation, which represents police officers and college professors who see themselves as victims of affirmative action policies; there is the Wednesday Morning Club, which brings speakers like Newt Gingrich, George Will and William Kristol (plus the occasional liberal) to a monthly networking lunch hosted by Horowitz at the Beverly Hills Hotel. There is the Matt Drudge Defense Fund, which raised $50,000 for the online gossip columnist's defense against a libel suit and which provided him with two pro bono lawyers. To burnish the center's image, there is even a charity organization.

The center's annual budget is approximately $3 million, roughly a third of which comes from the Olin, Bradley and Scaife foundations. But Horowitz also has 30,000 small donors who send checks of varying sizes. The center is his war room: His direct-mail campaigns, his endless media appearances (he employs a full-time publicist), his forays to college campuses, his charity work--all of it is coordinated under this roof. Of the fifteen people employed here, some are reluctant to communicate with a visiting reporter; others speak their mind. When I phoned the office a few weeks before my arrival to inquire about its proximity to public transportation, I was informed by one of Horowitz's young assistants, "The bus system is awful, but you don't want to ride with those people anyway."

Horowitz occupies the corner office, which affords a stunning view of downtown Los Angeles from the twelfth floor. It is a cluttered, cramped space, overflowing with unruly piles of books, pamphlets and magazines. Photographs of Horowitz with Bob Dole, Colin Powell and Henry Hyde adorn the walls, along with an admiring 1986 letter from Richard Nixon. Stout and compact, attired in a chic navy-blue suit, Horowitz appears relaxed and cheerful as he ruminates on his favorite themes: leftist domination of Hollywood, the press and higher education. "Hollywood keeps celebrating Communists," he grumbles, in reference to the recent film The Hurricane. "Where's the Hollywood film about Whittaker Chambers?"

Academia, too, is suspect: "I want to know," he snaps, "how many reading lists have von Hayek on them as opposed to Chomsky." But what about the UCLA survey of 35,000 professors cited by Robert Hughes in his book Culture of Complaint, which revealed that only 4.9 percent called themselves "far left," while 17.8 percent put down "conservative." Horowitz's voice rises to a shout. "Norman Podhoretz cannot retire and be a professor anywhere! Clancy Sigal, the novelist, is a fucking professor at USC! He has no degrees. He's written books that nobody reads, and he's got a sinecure."

Is the fractured, demoralized US left really the colossal monolith depicted in Horowitz's voluminous writings? "Leftists will always think of themselves as powerless," he replies cryptically, adding, "The actual views of Nation readers are reflected in the White House today, and in the DNC." Still, those who find themselves on the receiving end of his wrath should not take it personally. Says Horowitz with conviction: "I harbor no ill will toward leftists."

Some Horowitz-watchers beg to differ, and they attribute his rancor to a complex ideological journey that began in Sunnyside, Queens, in the fifties. His parents were Communists who taught Negro history in their spare time, and he recalls a boyhood home filled with prints by William Gropper, back issues of the Communist Party newspaper the Daily Worker and books like Stalingrad and Scottsboro Boy. In 1952 his father, a high school English teacher, came under attack for his political views. When he refused to answer the question of whether he was a Communist, he was fired for "insubordination," despite his twenty-eight years of service to the school system. His relations with the party were poisoned, and he quit shortly thereafter. But he remained a fellow traveler, and David grew up in a milieu of red summer camps, Paul Robeson concerts and May Day parades. In 1953, at the age of 14, he was present at the Union Square Park death vigil for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. When the execution was announced, mounted police moved in to quell the demonstration. In his compelling, infuriating memoir, Radical Son (1997), Horowitz recalled, "I scrambled with the others to avoid the hoofs of the oncoming beasts, thinking: This must be fascism."

Following his graduation from Columbia University, Horowitz began graduate work at UC-Berkeley, arriving just in time for the anti-HUAC protests in San Francisco, which ended in massive police violence against the demonstrators. Horowitz chronicled those events in a slender 1962 book titled Student, which was one of the first texts of the New Left. It begins with a line from Ingmar Bergman's The Magician: "I have prayed just one prayer in my life: Use me." Student contained some Howl-like riffs against the conformity and ennui of the fifties, and it sold 25,000 copies. In 1982 Mario Savio, leader of Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, told Horowitz that he devoured the entire text standing in a New York drugstore, and it inspired him to go to California because "Berkeley is the place."

In 1962 Horowitz and his young family moved to Europe, spending most of the next six years in London. He became affiliated with the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation; fell under the spell of Ralph Miliband, the socialist intellectual, and Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky's biographer; and wrote several bombastic and forgotten volumes whose ambition was "the reconstruction of socialist theory after Stalin."

In 1968, at the behest of his old Berkeley comrade Robert Scheer, Horowitz returned to California to work at Ramparts, which, under Scheer and Warren Hinckle, had become one of the New Left's most vibrant publications. But internecine conflict quickly erupted, and Scheer was ousted by Horowitz and Peter Collier. Today, Scheer attributes his removal to the fact that he wasn't "left enough" for the fiery insurgents. In Radical Son, however, Horowitz argues that Scheer was expelled in a popular revolt by beleaguered staff members. In the fall of 1969 Horowitz and Collier took over Ramparts, but they lacked their predecessors' journalistic and literary imagination, along with their ability to raise funds from wealthy individuals. The magic was gone, and the New Left's flagship publication perished in 1975.

In early 1974 the French writer Jean Genet phoned the Ramparts office and got Horowitz on the line. Genet, who had taken up the Black Panther cause in the Bay Area, needed a translator. Might Ramparts provide one? One thing led to another, and it wasn't long before Horowitz found himself in the Oakland penthouse of Panther leader Huey Newton, who had just returned from China. A heated argument about the revolutionary virtues of Maoism erupted between Horowitz and Newton, and the latter concluded the debate on a conciliatory note. Horowitz was delighted: "I had found a political soul mate," he recalls.

Horowitz's intellectual seduction by Newton constitutes some of the most fascinating pages in Radical Son. Newton made Horowitz his confidant, took him to glitzy parties and published his essays in the Panthers' official newspaper. When Newton asked him to raise money for a new Panther school in Oakland, Horowitz eagerly obliged by creating a tax-exempt foundation that eventually netted more than $100,000 for the project.

Attaching himself to the Bay Area Panthers in 1974 was, it turns out, a colossal mistake: Their heyday was over, and the leadership had become increasingly violent and deranged. The educator Herbert Kohl, who was then involved in several Panther education projects, warned Horowitz that Newton was abusing cocaine. ("He had a cold," Horowitz replied.) Uncomfortable being a white man in the upper ranks of the Panther hierarchy, Horowitz attempted to recruit qualified blacks to replace him, so he invited Troy Duster, a sociologist at UC-Berkeley, to meet Newton. But Duster was suspicious of Newton's mercurial behavior and fled. Horowitz then denounced Duster as something of a bourgeois "Uncle Tom." "I must have been insufferable," Horowitz says, reflecting on his younger self.

On July 22, 1974, Huey Newton shot a young prostitute, after which he fled to Cuba. "I should have left [the Panthers] then," Horowitz says. In fact, many of his black friends in the party did depart at that very moment--a turn of events that enraged Newton's successor, a striking, charismatic and voluble young woman named Elaine Brown, who, according to Horowitz, said the party was under attack and "the rats were leaving the ship." Horowitz says he felt trapped. When Brown asked him to recommend someone to oversee the party finances, he suggested Betty Van Patter, a 42-year-old bookkeeper who had worked at Ramparts. Van Patter, who was white, eagerly accepted the position. On December 13, 1974, she vanished. A month later, her body, with a massive head wound, was discovered in San Francisco Bay.

It is a case, according to veteran Panther-watcher Kate Coleman, that has "haunted the Bay Area left for two decades." A lengthy investigation by Coleman revealed that Van Patter had discovered questionable activity--rackets, dope, prostitution--at a Panther-run bar in Oakland called the Lamp Post and had reportedly complained about it to Brown, who then fired her.

Van Patter's death plunged Horowitz into "a really clinical depression," he says today. "For a good year, I woke up in tears every day because of Betty." What inspired the guilt was not simply that he'd recommended Van Patter to the Panthers but that he'd been too frightened to warn her about the dangers she faced. But he was in a bind: Van Patter, delighted to be employed by the Panthers, was completely enamored of Brown and wary of Horowitz, whom she did not trust. So he let her proceed with the job.

"Today I can't even justify it," he says wearily. "I have no idea why I did it." Horowitz and I are seated in his office. The room is tense and completely silent, except for the sound of his hand nervously striking the table. His voice, normally firm and confident, sinks to a barely audible mumble.

"It was inconceivable to me that the Panthers would kill Betty Van Patter," he whispers. "I was nervous about what was going on there, but if I told Betty what I actually felt, I was afraid that she would tell Elaine, and that Elaine would harm me or my children. I was completely unprotected."

If he could do it over again, what would he say to Van Patter?

"I would tell her flat out--get out of there," he replies. "But the consequences for me would have been awful. I didn't have any money. How was I going to move my family?"

Today, Tamara Baltar, Van Patter's daughter, does not consider Horowitz in any way responsible for her mother's death. "David didn't kill my mother, and David didn't participate in the killing of my mother," says Baltar, breaking a long silence on the case. Is there something curious about the fact that he holds himself responsible? "No," she replies. "I think I would, too, if I were him." Not until 1984, however, did Baltar, who was a leftist and a supporter of the Panthers, accept the view that they committed the crime. "David Horowitz kept at it from the beginning," she says. "And I was mad at him for keeping at it. But he kept at it."

In the late seventies, relying on his old Panther contacts, Horowitz quietly began to reconstruct the crime, and he was a primary source for a lengthy exposé on Newton's criminal activities that Kate Coleman published in New Times in 1978.

"I stayed on the story," he says. "It's a minimal atonement."

For her part, Elaine Brown vehemently denies Horowitz's accusation that the Panthers were involved in the murder. "I didn't have anything to do with this woman's death," Brown insisted in a recent telephone interview, noting that no arrests have ever been made in the case. "White people," says Brown, "always want me to tell them about fucking Betty Van Patter, but not one person from The Nation has ever called to ask me who I think killed George Jackson." From her point of view, Horowitz and Coleman have waged a relentless vendetta against her. But the available evidence strongly suggests Panther involvement in the death of Betty Van Patter. In 1984, when Van Patter's family engaged the services of the renowned private detective Hal Lipset, he reported back, "You should have no doubt that your mother's death was Panther-related--that they killed her."

In the wake of Betty Van Patter's death, Horowitz's life came apart. Surrounded by "personal darkness," he began a series of affairs, which led to the collapse of his marriage. He launched a new career, with Collier, as a dynastic biographer; eventually they would produce thick histories of the Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy families. "Without question, David Horowitz was extremely traumatized by what happened with Betty Van Patter, as I think anyone would be," says Hugh Pearson, author of The Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America. "As a result, David just totally went berserk with regard to the left-liberal community."

In 1979 Horowitz published an article in The Nation ["A Radical's Disenchantment," December 8] lashing radicals for their supposed moral indifference to repression and genocide in Vietnam and Cambodia. Old friends from the New Left began to fall away. In 1984 he cast a ballot for Ronald Reagan. In 1986 he informed a Berkeley audience: "You are in fact in league with the darkest and most reactionary forces of the modern world, whose legacies--as the record attests--are atrocities and oppression on a scale unknown in the human past." By 1989 Horowitz was comparing himself to Gifford Maxim, the Whittaker Chambers character in Lionel Trilling's novel The Middle of the Journey, an ex-Communist who confronted the radical tendencies of his time "with what he knew, from his experience, of the reality which lay behind the luminous words of the great promise." Horowitz had arrived at the final destination of his journey. Now, he ridicules the idea of utopia: "Every leftist should watch the Jerry Springer show," he says today. "How are you going to make a new world out of that material?"

Horowitz spent the nineties securing funding for the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, coming to grips with his family history, writing his memoirs and consolidating his status as a conservative pundit. That was accomplished with freewheeling attacks on homosexual promiscuity, multiculturalism, the ACLU, Angela Davis, the Russian Revolution, John Kenneth Galbraith, postmodernism and Winnie Mandela, to name but a few targets.

By the end of the decade, however, Horowitz had more or less exhausted his arsenal, and the political world beckoned. He was not a complete stranger to the corridors of power: In 1988 he and Collier wrote speeches for Bob Dole and had the pleasure of dining with Ronald Reagan, William Bennett and Newt Gingrich. Later, Horowitz was part of the brain trust that launched anti-affirmative action Proposition 209 in California. Last summer, he released The Art of Political War, printing 80,000 copies. It argues that the Republicans have been utterly vanquished by a President who has mastered the art of triangulation. In the public's mind, Horowitz writes, "the Clinton Democrat Party is now the party of economic vibrancy, anti-crime laws, welfare reform laws, budget surpluses and free trade. That's what the American people want."

To regain the political initiative, says Horowitz, Republicans must overturn the public perception that they are coldhearted and beholden to the rich: "'Tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of the poor.' This is the Democrat sound-bite that defines Republicans as mean-spirited fat cats and enemies of the poor. What is the Republican chant? There is none." He proposes his own mantra: taxes for bureaucrats out of the pockets of the people. Republicans, in his view, must aggressively depict their opponents in starkly different terms: "Democrats label Republicans right-wing. But Republicans have no label to pin on Democrats to fight back." Horowitz to the rescue: "Here, then, is a label for Democrats: Leftists. The Democrat Party is a party of the Left."

Finally, Horowitz argues that the Republican Party must, through a massive legislative push for school vouchers, reposition itself as "champions of working Americans and minorities," the "party of the underdog." The Art of Political War appears to be having an impact: A recent letter from the head of the Missouri Republican Party reported that Horowitz's suggestions proved decisive in a recent Congressional election in the state's 32nd District: "We prevailed," she wrote, "by implementing 'political war' a la Horowitz."

Horowitz's other current project is rather more controversial. No longer content to hammer away at the usual suspects, he has trained his sights on a new target: Afro-America. Hating Whitey's thesis is that contemporary black leaders--ranging from Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton to Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond--have "squandered" the moral legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. by their "restructuring of the civil rights agenda as a radical cause" with policies like affirmative action and multiculturalism. "Whereas the civil rights movement under Martin Luther King's leadership," he writes, "achieved its aims with the support of 90 percent majorities in both houses of Congress, a majority of Americans--roughly 70 percent--oppose the current civil rights agenda that embraces racial preferences." The "moral abdication" of black civil rights leaders can be explained, he insists, by "their close association with a radical left whose anti-white hatred is a by-product of its anti-Americanism." Consequently, "ideological hatred of whites is now an expanding industry not only in the African-American community, but among white 'liberals' in elite educational institutions as well."

Hating Whitey is filled with assaults on leading black thinkers (Harvard Professor Cornel West is dismissed as "an intellectual of modest talents whose skin color has catapulted him into academic stardom with a six-figure income") and giddy celebrations of the American past: "The establishment of America by Protestant Christians...was historically essential to the development of institutions that today afford greater privileges and protections to all minorities than those of any society extant."

The book is littered with inaccuracies large and small. Writing about the annual Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, Horowitz says he saw Nation columnist Christopher Hitchens, who was "showing his parents around the event." (Hitchens's parents are deceased.) More troubling is the way Horowitz wields statistics. "In 1994," he writes, "there were twenty thousand rapes of white women by black men, but only one hundred rapes of black women by white men"--a statistic he lifted from Dinesh D'Souza's book The End of Racism. D'Souza's assertion, however, is based on a gross misreading of Justice Department figures.

Hating Whitey was rejected by Horowitz's regular publisher, the Free Press, who told him they would never publish a book with that title. Spence Publishing, a tiny outfit in Dallas, was pressed into service. To propel sales, the author purchased more than 100 advertisements, but sinister forces derailed the campaign. In October the Center for the Study of Popular Culture issued a press release titled horowitz book on race hits roadblock despite public demand, which proclaimed that some bookstores were reluctant to stock it, while others mistakenly listed the book as Hating Whitney. His media appearances have been turbulent. In a debate with Michael Eric Dyson on Black Entertainment Television, Horowitz seemed overwhelmed by Dyson's rhetorical finesse, and by his repeated insistence that, given escalating levels of intermarriage, "black folks are loving whitey!"

Hating Whitey and The Art of Political War offer sharply divergent strategies on how to wage political combat. The latter insists that the Republican Party "can only win" by linking its agendas to the downtrodden, and it laments the GOP's unwillingness to "reach out to African Americans." In Hating Whitey, however, Horowitz whips up a frenzy about a multitude of black rapists. Is that the way to entice black voters into the Republican Party? "Sometimes my tactical agendas conflict," Horowitz shrugs.

As a young man, Horowitz was enamored of socialist revolution and the Black Panthers. His leftism has vanished; but the fervor remains. In that sense, he is not so different from the ex-Communists whom Horowitz's mentor, Isaac Deutscher, dissected in his famous 1950 review of the anthology The God That Failed. The apostate from Communism, Deutscher wrote, "continues to see the world in white and black, but now the colors are differently distributed." The most dignified attitude for the ex-Communist, Deutscher believed, was "critical sense and intellectual detachment." But many apostates found that an impossible road to follow, and, in Deutscher's phrase, ended up doing "the most vicious things."

Critical sense and intellectual detachment have never been Horowitz's forte. As he embarks on a new set of battles, the stakes are somewhat lower than in the past. Lives are not on the line; only jobs and reputations are. Take Horowitz's campaign against China expert and writer Orville Schell, dean of the UC-Berkeley Journalism School. In 1998 Horowitz's legal arm, the Individual Rights Foundation, filed suit against the Regents of the University of California on behalf of Michael Savage, a conservative radio commentator who had applied unsuccessfully for the deanship. Schell got the job, but the IRF suit contended that since he was selected through an old-boy network of New Leftists, his appointment constituted political patronage and was therefore illegal under California labor law.

Why was Schell, whom Horowitz has labeled a "Gucci Marxist," unfit for the position? "Although he has written several books on China and authored some op-ed pieces," Horowitz affirmed in Hating Whitey, he is "not a working journalist." Schell's curriculum vitae lists twelve books and 206 articles, including contributions to The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker and Harper's Magazine. The case eventually collapsed when Savage refused to be deposed.

Horowitz's crusade against Steve Wasserman, editor of the Los Angeles Times Book Review, was conducted with similar methods. When Wasserman arrived at the LA Times in 1996 Horowitz spread rumors about his youthful relationship with the "Red Family" commune, "a group of Berkeley urban guerrillas." In an interview with Buzz magazine Horowitz repeated a story he says he heard in the sixties--that Tom Hayden taught the young Wasserman how to manufacture explosives. Horowitz later withdrew the charge in a letter to Buzz: "Steve now informs me that the story is untrue and I have no reason to disbelieve him." (Wasserman says he was never a member of the Red Family.) Subsequently, Wasserman asked Horowitz to contribute a 250-word essay to a symposium on Marx's Communist Manifesto, but he shortened the piece for reasons of clarity and coherence. When Horowitz saw his tiny essay alongside a lengthy commentary by Eric Hobsbawm, he dispatched a letter to Times publisher Mark Willes, lecturing him about Hobsbawm's Communist past and insisting that "Wasserman has an agenda in defending Marx." Willes passed the letter to Wasserman, who communicated his displeasure to Horowitz. That prompted Horowitz, writing in Salon, to once again dredge up the old charges about the rifle-toting Red Family: "They hoped to launch a 'war of liberation' in America, and Wasserman was one of their foot soldiers."

For Horowitz, it's not only journalism schools and newspapers that harbor subversives; the Democratic Party itself has been invaded. One of the many people pilloried in Hating Whitey is Carlottia Scott, who was an aide to former Representative Ron Dellums and is currently political director of the Democratic National Committee; Horowitz labels her a "communist." Is Scott a member of the CPUSA? "I don't know that she's a member of the CPUSA," he replies with irritation. "Small 'c,' please."

In leveling such charges, Horowitz knows he is being outrageous, but it's all part of the high-stakes game he is playing. He seems to accept the fact that something in his character propels him toward the edge, wherever it may lie, and it's a risk he accepts wholeheartedly. He is a man willing, maybe even eager, to play with fire. Perhaps that is the surest way of saying to the Olin, Scaife and Bradley foundations, "Use me." At one point, in discussing his long campaign against Elaine Brown, he confesses that for a while he was afraid to turn on the ignition of his car in the morning. I asked him if he meant that seriously. He does. "Hating Whitey has returned the apprehension," he admits. "But when I am out there," he says, "talking about the violence that is committed against whites in America by blacks--which is huge and largely unreported--I know there are black people out there who see me as...somebody standing in the way of justice for them. And that means they hate me. And I need to just recognize that." Thus far, he hasn't received any threats.

In an article in the New York Times Magazine last November about the new cold war scholarship, Jacob Weisberg interpreted Horowitz's career as a "fierce Oedipal struggle entwined with radicalism." That is ultimately a question for psychohistorians, but what is certain is that Horowitz craves approval, and that underneath the fiery demeanor is an insecure human being. More than anything, he wishes to be taken seriously as an intellectual and an apostate. In 1998, when Smith College Professor Daniel Horowitz published a biography of Betty Friedan--one that delved into her political affiliations in the forties and fifties-- Horowitz tore into the book in Salon, demanding that Friedan come clean about her "Stalinist Marxist" past. But he also purchased an advertisement in a Smith College newspaper that proclaimed: "An Invitation to Professor Daniel Horowitz (No Relation) or Any Member of the Smith Faculty or Administration to a Debate on Any One of the Following Subjects: 1. The Fibs of Smith Alumna Betty Friedan. 2. Smith's Political Hiring Practices that Result in a Liberal Arts Faculty Overwhelmingly on the Political Left. 3. What has happened to Students' Academic Freedom? (As in the Right Not to be Ideologically Indoctrinated in the Classroom) --David Horowitz." No one accepted his offer.

He talks openly about his quest for intellectual respectability. Here is Horowitz on The New Republic: "[Literary editor] Leon Wieseltier, for some reason, hates me. I have no idea. They not only don't ask me to write for them, but they don't review my books." On lunch with Steve Wasserman, months before his invitation to the Marx symposium: "I found myself wondering whether a leftist writer of reputation comparable to mine would have been invited to lunch by Wasserman and not asked to write a review for his magazine." On being snubbed by the sociologist Alan Wolfe at a conference: "I invited him to breakfast. I wanted to speak to Alan. I think a lot of what he does is good work. He was afraid to get near me. I could see him drawing back. I think he's afraid of the taint. I ate alone."

At 61, Horowitz shows no signs of exhaustion; indeed, Hating Whitey is his most incendiary work to date. His guilt over Betty Van Patter is an unrelenting source of anguish, and consequently there is every reason to believe that his crusade against the "Great White Whale" will continue, in all its peculiar sound and fury. Horowitz strenuously rejects allegations that he is a neo-McCarthyite. But his zeal and righteousness, his passion for lists and old political affiliations, his use of gossip and innuendo, his endless feuds and vendettas make him a creature of the fifties--not Whittaker Chambers, as he would have it, but something closer to Walter Winchell. "Stigmatizing" and "segregating" the left has brought him financial security in addition to a host of other benefits. His beloved column in Salon is a platform from which he can launch guerrilla raids deep into enemy territory; his recent marriage to a much younger woman has finally brought him some domestic tranquillity; and his burgeoning reputation in the Republican Party reduces the likelihood that he will have to eat alone, at least in Washington.