Horowitz & Commentary
-- Slavery's Effects Should have Disappeared in Two Generations - 11/07/02
-- Conservative Critic Blasts NAACP's Opposition to Caucasian Student Club - 9/30/03
-- Students slam pro-Israel speaker - But welcome professor with 'terror ties' - 1/21/05
-- The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America - 3/08/06
-- INVASION USA - 43 leaders oppose amnesty candidates - 7/07/06
-- Bush doesn't think America should be an actual place - 11/19/06
-- 10 Acts of Muslim Genocide Against Christians - 10/27/08
-- Muslim women told: For family's sake, commit suicide - 3/29/09
-- Death of daughter shakes conservative dad - 12/25/09
-- U.S. Christian Marine fires back over Shariah loans with AIG bailout - 6/08/10
-- Islam: Religion of Bigots - 8/23/13
-- “Anyone who bombs the Pentagon has my vote.” University of New Mexico Professor Richard Berthold
-- Dear Fellow American
-- Obama's War on the Young
| Death of daughter shakes conservative dad
Published: 12/25/2009 Jim Fletcher
author-image Jim Fletcher About | Email | Archive
Blogger and researcher Jim Fletcher has worked in the book publishing industry for 15 years, and is now director of the apologetics group Prophecy Matters. His new book, "Truth Wins," provides important analysis of Rob Bell and his Emergent friends.
As a founder of the “New Left” in the ’60s, David Horowitz unintentionally added to the rich hues of his personality by making an about-face in worldview. Politically, Horowitz today is one of the icons of the conservative movement. His FrontPage Magazine website is a watchdog of both the trendy and vicious left. Horowitz frequently speaks on college campuses and is quite emphatic about the threats to civilization that seem to spring up these days like psychedelic mushrooms.
But it is as a father that Horowitz really shines. In “A Cracking of the Heart,” his new memoir about his daughter, Sarah, Horowitz wonderfully, achingly shares the story of this courageous woman who battled difficult birth conditions to accomplish more than most do with long, gray lifetimes.
In Chapter 1, Horowitz writes that Sarah’s death at 44 left a “wake of vacancy and heartache behind.”
This Horowitz is quite different from the one that writes with acerbic wit and hot daggers about various socialists, huggers of dictators and diabolical change agents that stalk our land. Sarah’s father is a man of great humanity, and this extraordinary book can be a catalyst for anyone enduring the ghastly effects of a loved one’s death.
The reader can imagine the author sighing often while setting this remembrance to paper. There is a wonderful connection to the human need to at least ponder the afterlife; Horowitz relates that neither he nor Sarah believe in a resurrection of the dead, but she told him once, “I say the prayer, ‘Blessed are you, God; you resurrect the dead,’ every morning over my coffee.”
It is this kind of contradiction, so shared by all people, that make the book accessible to people of all faiths, or no faith.
Beset by a host of physical limitations (poor eyesight, poor hearing, arthritic hip, kinked aorta), Sarah was nonetheless a gifted writer and splendid advocate for the downtrodden. At her funeral, her father eulogized her, and among the wonderful recollections, the reader begins to choke when the author relates a list of obstacles … “the single life which she did not want.”
Yet far more than anything else, Sarah’s story is a crackling display of a life that, frankly, was far better lived than most. When most of us complain of minor inconveniences with embarrassing alarm, she achieved a fierce independence: working long hours, riding buses for post-graduate work, writing.
Father and daughter differed in their political views, but Sarah’s intense drive to bring good to the world tempered David’s displeasure with some of her choices of candidate. In fact, the story of Sarah’s refusal to accept Social Security benefits indicates that, along with her fierce independence, she might have at least shared with her father the belief that social programs aren’t always the answer. The legion of deadbeats in America could learn some things from Sarah Horowitz.
Our national obsession with Hollywood also makes us think that life somehow imitates a script. Not so with Sarah. The description in “A Cracking of the Heart” of her struggles with health and her desire (but inability) to have children is a signal that this life is very messy.
I am reminded in this story of my favorite Jewish hero, Jonathan Netanyahu. The commander of an elite force sent to free hostages at Entebbe, Netanyahu had the same total commitment to the highest values that Sarah had. For a Gentile like me, it is important to recognize and embrace Jewish heroes; frankly, they point the way for the rest of us. Sarah assaulted her Entebbes on a regular basis, and in her inspiring story, the rest of us are the better for it.
In a world of narcissists, it is also refreshing to see the personal thoughts, through journal entries, of a woman who I believe knew her own writing talent, but when one commits something to paper, she recognizes it can be read. The first Sumerian scribes knew that, and for Sarah, who lived alone, the possibility of her writing coming to light didn’t prevent her from setting to paper her private terrors. Again, in the baring of her soul, the rest of us realize we aren’t really alone.
Students slam pro-Israel speaker
- But welcome professor with 'terror ties'
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Aaron Klein - © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Students at the Rochester Institute of Technology have been protesting an upcoming lecture, mandatory for some seniors, by pro-Israel Middle East expert Daniel Pipes, while public concerns have not been voiced over another speech, part of the same series, by Ali Mazrui, a professor accused of ties to organizations supporting terrorism.
RIT is featuring the Caroline Gerner Gannett Lecture Series, a seminar for seniors open to all students on "Globalization, Human Rights and Citizenship," that brings to the campus over a dozen guest speakers as well as in-house professors to discuss topics ranging from regional conflict to the conservation of water.
Even though his speech is three months away, students have already written letters to lecture coordinators and the university president demanding Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a think tank that defines and promotes American interests in the Middle East, be disinvited or appear with a counterpoising speaker, although other Gannett lecturers appear without opposing speakers. An antiwar group has plastered the RIT undergraduate campus with posters protesting Pipes' speech.
Pipes has in the past drawn some fire from Islamic groups for his support of Israel and for exposing several Islamic extremist organizations operating in the U.S.
In one letter to RIT president Dr. Albert Simone, a student writes Pipes is "an individual who makes broad stereotypical generalizations about people of the Muslim faith, such as '15% of Muslims are terrorists,' as well as supporting the concept that the only road to Middle East peace is 'Total Israeli victory' ... How can the Gannett Lecture Series purport to be promoting the academic principles of debate and discussion when it allows his ideas to go without criticism by his peers? If Daniel Pipes does not want to appear with another speaker, then as I see it he doesn't have to come and get paid."
Pipes, who once estimated 15% of Muslims are "Islamists" not "terrorists," has said he would not be interested in speaking with an opposing professor.
"My major purpose in going to universities like RIT is to offer a different point of view from what students usually hear. I dislike the idea of balance because it cuts into my time and it implies that my views need to be wrapped and controlled," said Pipes.
Dr. Paul Grebinger, professor of Anthropology and coordinator of the Gannett series, agreed.
"It is often valuable to hear from individuals whose ideas we may oppose and whom we may not even like. I expect that Pipes will draw representatives from the Islamic community here on campus and from Rochester. They will no doubt be asking very pointed questions. So, I don't expect any lack of debate."
Last week, a poster distributed throughout the campus sponsored by the RIT Antiwar Group headlined "Islam is not the problem" called Pipes a "racist" and declared, "The real problem is the occupation of Iraq and the U.S. support of oppressive regimes in the Middle East. Stop the scapegoating of Arabs and Muslims!"
The group justified their "racist" label by quoting an article in which Pipes wrote, "The outside world should focus not on showering money or other benefits on the Palestinian Arabs, but on pushing them relentlessly to accept Israel's existence."
One RIT professor who asked that his name be withheld for fear that he "may lose his job" called the posters "idiotic. There is nothing remotely close to being racist about that statement. Pipes is the only thing approaching a non-leftist perspective on this campus, it wouldn't kill these students to hear an opposing view. None of the liberal speakers need balancing counterparts."
Dr. A.J. Cashetta, a professor of language at RIT told WorldNetDaily "I have never heard anyone here complain before that a speaker needed a counterbalanced idea, and now suddenly we have Pipes and people are complaining?"
Meanwhile, another Gannett lecturer, Dr. Ali Mazrui, who has repeatedly made anti-Israel comments, spoke at an Islamic extremist institution and is accused of ties to groups supporting terrorism, has escaped student criticism.
Mazrui, director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at Binghamton University, is on the board of the Association of Muslim Social Services, whose sister organization, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Saudi-funded Islamic group, was raided by the FBI in 2003. The executive secretary for the AMSS, Kamran Bokhari, was the North American spokesman for Al-Muhajiroun, a UK-based fundamentalist organization that disbanded in October under intense pressure by the authorities because of the group's suspected ties to al-Qaida. Al-Muhajiroun members have become suicide bombers for Hamas, fought U.S. troops in Afghanistan, held rallies calling for the "death of America," and publicly supported the charge of Osama bin Laden.
Mazrui lectured last year at the International Center for the Propagation of Islam in Durban South Africa. According to Militant Islam Monitor, the Center is funded by the bin Laden family and organizations linked to al-Qaida, and its founder and director, Ahmed Deedat, has publicly boasted of meeting bin Laden personally several times.
Mazrui recently wrote a paper, "The State of Israel as Cause for Anti-Semitism," and presented a lecture at Binghamton that a student called "a 45-minute diatribe against Israel" equating Zionism with fascism, Israel with apartheid South Africa and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with Hitler. Mazrui also expressed support for Sami Al-Arian, a South Florida professor indicted for raising money for the Islamic Jihad terror group, calling him "a victim of prejudice and of popular ill will."
In an IslamOnline.com Question and Answer series, Mazrui implied Muslims are being isolated from American politics by pro-Israel Jews. "In the case of Hillary Clinton for example she was under pressure from pro-Israeli anti-Muslim New Yorkers. It was vital that American Muslims should not let those forces prevail and should keep on trying to enter the system ..." wrote Mazrui.
Beila Rabinowitz, director of Militant Islam Monitor, told WorldNetDaily, "It is a travesty of the war on terror that we are hearing calls for halting the lecture of Dr. Daniel Pipes, the distinguished Middle East expert, while no one is demanding that the RIT administration scrutinize the scheduled lecturer Ali Mazrui, who plays leading roles in radical Islamist organizations."
Mazrui, in an interview with WND, countered, "I'm not spying on the AMSS to find out who else is involved with them and whether they are kosher. Also, about the university in South Africa, I have to find out who funded it. But I don't agree with this guilt by association policy."
American universities hosting speakers connected to terrorism is nothing new. In December, WND exposed Nova Southeastern University was hosting a fundraising concert for the Islamic Relief, a charity connected to several organizations that support terrorism, is under investigation for accepting a contribution from a front group for al-Qaida, and was founded by the principle fundraiser for Muslim Aid, which according to Spanish police used funds to send mujahideen to fight U.S. troops overseas and has held events at which speakers have boasted of supporting al-Qaida terror activities.
And in October, Duke University hosted a Palestinian solidarity conference cleared by the FBI and Homeland Security in which students were recruited to join the International Solidarity Movement, a terror-supporting group that has harbored terrorists in their Middle East offices and is outlawed in Israel.
David Horowitz, author and editor-in-chief of FrontPage Magazine, told WorldNetDaily the groups protesting Pipes and similar groups at universities throughout the country "are left-wing groups – often self-styled Marxist-Leninist vanguards – who regard the United States as the Great Satan, view the terrorists as 'liberators' and want us to lose the war on terror."
The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous
Academics In America
By Paul M. Weyrich
March 8, 2006
So now we have a geography teacher suggesting that President George W. Bush is sort of like Adolph Hitler. This teacher's entire rant attacked capitalism, our conduct abroad, just about everything we hold dear. Geography was one of my favorite topics going back to the sixth grade. I even took a geography course in college. This is geography?
I just did my radio show (the Right Hour on the Rightalk Radio Network) with David Horowitz about his new book, exposing the 101 worst academics in America. I asked him what's next? The 101 worst kindergarten teachers in the USA? Of course, we are not speaking of their ability to teach. That is a wholly different subject. The open radicalism on college campuses these days is mind-boggling.
I was taught once at the University of Wisconsin by a member of the Communist Party. His assigned readings were all from the left and he worked overtime to discredit the founders of our once great nation. However, he had to hide his efforts. He was careful as to what he said in the classroom. There was one student who came to class who was a well read conservative. His father was very strict and he feared getting bad grades from this professor, with whom he often tangled in class.
At that time the University of Wisconsin procedure was to issue an interim grade. Both the conservative student and I got a C. While my folks were not happy about that, they were sympathetic when I explained to them what happened in this Commie's class. My friend had no such sympathy. He literally was beaten down, if not beaten up, by his father. He came to class defeated. Then I watched as he slowly but surely began to agree with the Communist Professor. I quoted scripture to my fellow student about his gaining the whole world but losing his soul. He, as I, had a strong Christian background. He hung his head and walked away from me. My final grade for that semester was a C. His final grade was an A. Same for the second semester. This was more than 40 years ago so we have had this problem for a long time. Whereas 40 years ago this academic went out of his way to hide his real identity, today he would be openly touting his membership in the Communist Party. And at that time he dared not flunk me because my academic work did not deserve it. Today I probably would have been awarded an F.
What is shocking about the Horowitz book and is even more shocking when you hear him recount it is the sheer brazenness of the professors and other instructors who go out of their way to brag about their affiliation. They didn't bomb enough. They didn't do enough to damage America's imperialism.
Horowitz estimates that there are about 60,000 of these radical professors in every part of the nation, at small colleges and large - at prestigious Eastern schools, where you would expect them, but even at widely acclaimed Baptist and Catholic colleges and universities. Think of it: 60,000, the size of a small city. We are not talking about liberals here. Horowitz is clear that while he thinks liberals are wrong they are entitled to their opinions. Rather, we are talking about the most vile, America-hating Stalinist-style professors who will accept no dissent. They preach tolerance and then practice the opposite.
I asked Horowitz if he were a parent who was spending a substantial sum of money to send his son or daughter to a college or university and his offspring encountered one of these professors what would he do? Horowitz stressed that the parent should want to send his son or daughter to one of the decent schools. There are not many, he said, but there are some. If the student already is in college, see to it that he stays in contact with the many (and growing) campus conservative organizations. And the parent should put the kid in touch with conservative websites. They are invaluable in finding material to counter the way-out liberal message.
David Horowitz is a hero. Every man, woman and child in the United States owes him a debt of gratitude. Ever since his conversion from the far left he has worked tirelessly to expose the left for what it is and to sound the trumpet on the right that we must be more militant and more willing to sacrifice for our beliefs. He has had a close call with death and having recovered has maintained a schedule which would tire someone thirty years younger. The reason he is so effective is because he knows the other side's playbook. He has been there. He recognizes all that is being done and he is fearful that America is not waking up in sufficient time to turn things around.
His book is truly a must read. The title: The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America. It is available everywhere books are sold.
Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Christian Marine fires back over Shariah loans with AIG bailout
U.S. Marine fires back over Shariah loans
Posted: June 08, 2010 By Chelsea Schilling WorldNetDaily
A U.S. Marine who served in Iraq is suing the federal government for distributing billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the Shariah-supporting American International Group.
The lawsuit, Murray v. Geithner et al., was brought against the Fed and the Treasury by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Kevin Murray, a former Marine who served honorably in Iraq to defend the United States from Islamic terrorists.
Murray argues that he is being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law, which he says is hostile to his Christian religion.
He is represented by Thomas More attorney Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who is an expert in Shariah law and Shariah-compliant financing, as well as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy. They filed the initial complaint in December 2008.
On June 7, Murray's attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment asking federal District Court Judge Lawrence Zatkoff to rule against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board.
The Thomas More Law Center explained the motion for summary judgment is based on depositions of Treasury officials, court-sealed affidavits of AIG officials and sworn declarations of two notable experts on Islamic law and terrorism: Stephen C. Coughlin and Robert Spencer.
Coughlin, a lawyer and decorated Army Reserve officer, is a leading Pentagon expert on the link between Islamic law and jihad. He explained that by engaging in Shariah-compliant financing, AIG and the federal government – which owns 79.9 percent of AIG – are engaging in the religious practice of Islam.
Islam teaches hostility and discrimination against Jews, Christians and anyone who doesn't accept the Quran as the "word of Allah," he said, explaining that the indoctrination stems from the same law that motivated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
As WND reported, Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, has studied Islamic theology and history for 30 years. He is author of "Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs,""The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades" and eight other books dealing with Islam. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Command and General Staff College, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the U.S. intelligence community.
Spencer explained that by offering Shariah-compliant financing, AIG is promoting religious behavior that teaches hatred and discrimination against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.
(Story continues below)
The motion states, "[T]he use of taxpayer money to approve, endorse and support Shariah-based Islamic religious activities and religious indoctrination, including the use of such funds to acquire government ownership and control that engages in such activities, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
At the time of the 2008 bailout, AIG was – and remains today – a world leader in Shariah-compliant insurance products.
As WND reported, AIG, which is now a government-owned company, owns a Shariah-compliant insurance company, offering accident, health, motor, personal contents, property and casualty insurance coverage. Shariah-compliant financing subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.
"AIG's SCF [Shariah-Compliant Finance] business is pervasively sectarian in that its 'secular' business purposes and its Islamic religious missions are inextricably intertwined," the complaint states.
The motion notes that AIG describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on Quran and the teachings of the Prophet."
"Specifically, the Quran is considered by the majority but not all of Islamic adherents to be the perfect expression of Allah's will for man," it states. "Presumably, most non-Muslims, and this is certainly true of plaintiff, don't accept the Quran as divine or as an expression – perfect or otherwise – of Allah or any divinity."
It adds, "AIG, and by clear extension and implication defendants on behalf of the government, are taking a particular theological position by supporting a specific interpretation of Shariah-based Islam."
Beyond financial support through funding of AIG, the complaint accuses the government of promoting and endorsing Shariah-Compliant Finance through publications on the Treasury website, an official position at the Treasury Department of the "Islamic Finance Scholar-in-Residence Program" and presentations by Treasury officials promoting Shariah-Compliant Finance and stating that the U.S. government "places significant importance on promoting … Islamic finance" and has "recently deepened our engagement in Islamic finance in a number of ways," including a "call for harmonization of Shari'a[sic] standards at the national and international levels."
Then, as WND reported in December 2008, the Treasury Department sponsored and promoted a conference titled "Islamic Finance 101."
"What makes this case all the more egregious is that this doctrine – Shariah – also happens to be the underlying legal and military doctrine animating jihad against the West by Muslims from the Middle East, Asia, Russia, Africa, and even right here at home," Yerushalmi said in a press release. "Each and every one of the domestic and foreign jihad terrorists have proclaimed their allegiance to Shariah and its call for 'jihad against apostates and infidels.'"
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said, "It's outrageous that the federal government is the owner of a corporation engaged in a business with interests adverse to the United States. We filed this lawsuit not only to defend constitutional principles, but also to defend our national security. It's clear we can't leave the job of protecting America to the Washington politicians."
In an earlier decision, Judge Zatkoff denied a request by the Obama administration to dismiss the lawsuit.
In his ruling, the judge declared that the complaint sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG's Islamic religious activities. The court noted:
Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution. In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least two of AIG's subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release. Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled "Islamic Finance 101." These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government's involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff's claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.
Yerushalmi stated, "It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company's own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG's Shariah businesses – all of which don't just sell Shariah products to the Muslim world, but actively promote Shariah as the best, most ethical way of life."
He added, "Indeed, the Shariah authorities relied upon by AIG's Shariah Supervisory Committees actively promote jihad – and by jihad we mean kinetic war against the infidel West."
| Islam: Religion of Bigots
by Robert Spencer Frontpagemag.com August 23, 2013
Barack Obama has said repeatedly that Islam is “a religion of peace.” His administration has accused those who do not agree with this proposition — or who dare mention Islamic violence against women and homicidal oppression of homosexuals — of “Islamophobia.”These are fictions and the President has done the country a fundamental disservice by promulgating them.
The truth? The true religious bigotry is the one that exists in the heart of Islamic orthodoxy. In Saudi Arabia, the existence of Christian churches is prohibited, along with the Bible itself; no Christian or Jew can enter Mecca or Medina lest their mere footsteps desecrate Islam’s holiest sites. In Pakistan and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world, conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death. In Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and even the President’s beloved Indonesia, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other “infidels” often face acts of religious genocide by fundamentalists who invoke core Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions.
In short, as Robert Spencer shows in his alarming new pamphlet, Islam: Religion of Bigots, the creed of Muhammad, far from being a religion of peace, has revealed itself in the post-9/11 world to be a religion of bigotry.
“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance,” proclaimed President Barack Obama during his appeal to the Muslim world from Cairo on June 4, 2009.
“We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.”1
Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Even during what is generally considered to have been the Golden Age of Islamic “tolerance,” it is more accurate to say that non-Muslims were tolerated as second-class subjects rather than respected as equals under Islamic regimes. They were regarded as dhimmis, whose residence was conditioned on their submission to humiliating regulations that ensured their subjugation to the Muslim population. They had to pay an onerous special tax (jizya) mandated by the Qur’an (9:29), for example, and wear special marks identifying their second-class status.
Moreover, unlike Christendom, whose leaders have issued apologies for past mistreatment of Jews and condemned the scriptural justifications for that mistreatment, authorities in the Muslim world from Muhammad’s day to this have never thought twice about referring to Jews as “apes and pigs” (cf. Qur’an 2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166), or regarding them as destined by God’s will for destruction. These are some of the salient facts that Obama’s charitable view obscures at a time when prominent Muslim leaders including Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the world’s most prominent Muslim cleric, are calling on the faithful to finish the extermination of the Jews that Hitler began.2
In countries where Muslims are a small minority, such as the United States, there is a surface plausibility to Obama’s claim. Muslim groups have so far accommodated themselves to a democracy whose secular faith is one of diversity and tolerance. But in countries and communities where Muslims constitute a national majority, the face of Islam looks quite different. In Saudi Arabia, the existence of Christian churches is prohibited, along with the possession of Christian Bibles; no Christian or Jew is allowed to enter the cities of Mecca and Medina lest their footprints defile Islam’s sacred sites. As the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places, Saudi Arabia has a unique status in the Islamic world. One aspect of this status is that Mecca and Medina are realizations of Muhammad’s command to remove all but Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula.3 Mecca and Medina represent the aspirations of the Muslim world, the vision of a quintessential Islamic society: one in which there are no non-Muslims.
In Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, conversion from Islam to Christianity is already punishable by death, in accord with Muhammad’s command. In Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, and even Obama’s beloved Indonesia, religious minorities — Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and non-believers –face harassment and often violent religious persecution. These persecutions are carried out by jihadist Muslims who invoke core Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions. In short, in the Muslim world itself, which since 9/11 has been increasingly swept up in the tide of Islamic supremacism, the creed of Muhammad reveals itself to be a religion of bigots rather than, as President Obama would have it, a religion of peace.
There is a theological foundation for Islamic bigotry. The Qur’an calls the Jews and Christians who reject Muhammad “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). It says that the “polytheists are unclean” (9:28), and since it claims that Jews consider Ezra the Son of God the way Christians consider Jesus the Son of God (9:30), and that “it is not befitting for Allah to take a son” (19:35), in Islamic theology, Jews and Christians are as much polytheists as are Hindus and hence just as unclean.
In March 2013, the Egyptian Islamic scholar Abdullah Badr demonstrated how such a belief can work out in practice when he explained that Christians disgusted him, saying that it was “not a matter of piety, but disgust. I get grossed out. Get that? Disgust, I get grossed out, man, I cannot stand their smell or … I don’t like them, it’s my choice. And they gross me out; their smell, their look, everything. I feel disgusted, disgusted.”4
That disgust has combined with imperatives derived from Qur’anic injunctions to “slay the polytheists wherever you find them” (9:5) and to subjugate the People of the Book (9:29) to play out in Islamic history in the cleansing of entire regions of their non-Muslim populations. Eliminating other religions, as per Qur’an 8:39 (“fight…until religion is all for Allah”) and making sure that any non-Muslims who remain are conquered and submissive, is the overarching goal of jihad. As an Iranian Bahai observed to V. S. Naipaul in the course of his travels through the world of Islam, “These Muslims are a strange people. They have an old mentality. Very old mentality. They are very bad to minorities.”5
The transformation of Constantinople following its conquest in 1453 illustrates the effects of Muslim bigotry. Before the Muslim conquest, Constantinople had been the center of Eastern Christianity and the second city of all Christendom, as well as the chief rival to the splendor and authority of Rome. Its Hagia Sophia cathedral, built by the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century, was the grandest and most celebrated church in the Christian world until the construction of St. Peter’s in the Vatican. As recently as 1914, Constantinople still boasted a population nearly fifty percent Christian. Today, as a result of the religious persecution of Christians, the city is now 99.99% Muslim.6
After the 1453 Muslim conquest, the Hagia Sophia Cathedral, like so many other Christian churches before and after, was transformed into a mosque. After Turkey’s secularization, the mosque was converted into a museum by the secularists, and is now about to be transformed into a mosque again. While secular Turkey did not enforce Islamic law, it saw a depoliticized Islam as essential to the Turkish identity at the expense of the Christian population. In Tur-Abdin in southwest Turkey in 1960, there were 150,000 Christians; today, there are just over two thousand.7 The rest have fled in the face of Muslim hostility and harassment.
Occasionally, Muslim authorities found it politically expedient to draw explicitly on the genocidal passions Muhammad had inspired, and used them to arouse the fury of the populace against the dhimmis, who were bringing Allah’s disfavor upon the larger community. In a harbinger of the Armenian catastrophe that would take place in Turkey twenty years later, the Ottoman sultan Abdul Hamid initiated a series of bloody strikes against the restive Christian Armenians in eastern Anatolia in 1895. The Armenians had made the mistake of embracing Western notions of human rights, and of beginning to question their dhimmi status. According to Lord Kinross, historian of the Ottoman Empire, “at the point of a bayonet,” the Armenians were offered “the choice between death and forcible conversion to Islam.”8 The genocide that the Muslim Turks subsequently conducted during World War I was a manifestation of the same jihadist strain in Islam, and led to the murder of a million and a half Armenians.
In Turkey itself, the Christian population has declined from 15% in 1920 to 1% today. In Syria, the Christian population has declined from 33% to 10% in the same span. Since the Turks occupied northern Cyprus in 1974, churches have been despoiled of their icons, which have flooded the market in Greece. The Turks have taken over many churches for secular uses, and even tried to convert the fourth century Christian monastery of San Makar into a hotel. Christian Cypriots are forbidden to come near the building, much less enter it.9
Likewise in Tunisia, “in the early 1950s, half of the inhabitants of Tunis were Catholics, but with the declaration of independence some 280,000 Tunisian Catholics were expelled. Today there are no more than a tenth of this number and most of the churches are closed or no longer in use.”10
Before the Gulf War, the number of Christians in Iraq approached a million people, according to some estimates.11 But with Shi’ites and Sunnis vying for power in the war-torn country, over half, or roughly 500,000 Christians, have fled the country rather than risk the treatment in store for them from the majority Muslim population. This is not to suggest that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein was particularly hospitable to Iraqi Christians. Even under his relatively secular regime, in which Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was a Chaldean Catholic, the small Christian community faced random violence from the Muslim majority. Aside from outbreaks of actual persecution, including murder, Christians were routinely pressured to renounce their religion and to marry Muslims.12 But since Saddam’s removal and the institution of Iraq’s Islamic constitution, the situation has grown exponentially worse.
Since the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascendancy in Egypt, enabled by the Obama administration, Islamic bigotry has been directed with increasing violence toward the nation’s indigenous Coptic Christian population. Recently, Muslim mobs, with the acquiescence of the Islamic supremacist regime, conducted an armed attack on St. Mark’s Cathedral, the seat of the Coptic pope. Now Copts are fleeing the country in droves. NBC News reported in June 2013: “The number of Egyptians receiving asylum in the U.S. has jumped more than five-fold in recent years.”13
In Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, the population was 85% Christian in 1948, but as of 2006, only 12% of those who hold to the faith of the town’s most celebrated native son remained, and even that minimal percentage is almost certainly smaller today.14
Islamic bigotry is driving Christians out of their ancient homelands all over the Middle East. “A century ago,” noted Simon Kent in the Toronto Sun, June 2013, “more than 20% of the region’s population was Christian and as recently as the 1980s, places like Lebanon had a Christian majority. Now, with Christian numbers fading, it’s split between brawling Hezbollah Shi’a and Sunni fanatics. Estimates put the Christian population in the Middle East at under 5% and sinking rapidly — and the figure only remains that high because of the Coptic Christians who have not yet left strife- torn Egypt.”15
The purging of Christians in the Middle East has taken place largely since Osama bin Laden launched the Islamic jihad in earnest. It represents the greatest population cleansing of modern times, dwarfing “ethnic” cleansings, and has taken place almost silently — while facile Western observers, including the occupant of the White House, rhapsodize about Muslim “tolerance.”
In a stark plaint that would sound paranoid if it were not so obviously true, Gregory III, the Patriarch of Antioch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, stated in 2006: “After September 11, there is a plot to eliminate all the Christian minorities from the Arabic world. Our simple existence ruins the equations whereby Arabs can’t be other than Moslems, and Christians but be westerners.”16
Nor is it just the Arab Middle East where the purge is taking place. Hindu activist Bharati Krishna declares: “When Pakistan came into existence in 1947, 24 per cent of the population were Hindus. And now look at the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan, just below 2 per cent. What happened to the rest? Majority of them have been mercilessly killed by the Islamic fanatics and the rest forcibly converted to Islam.” Krishna adds “the same happened in the case of Bangladeshi Hindus. The percentage of Hindu population in Bangladesh in 1947 (then East Pakistan) was numbered at 31. But with course of time it has been declined and stationed at nine per cent now. Massive religious conversion and ruthless murders of the Hindus were the reasons for this decline.”17
Traditional Islamic Submissions
At the “World Without Zionism” conference held in Tehran in October 2005,
the assembled delegates chanted “death to Israel, death to America, death to
England,” while the host, Ahmadinejad, predicted to the cheers of the
assembled that, “with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a
world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt.”40
37 “The Islamic Genocide Plan,” FrontPageMagazine.com,
December 1, 2006. See also “Statements by Radical Muslims calling for the
destruction of Israel (and its ally the United States),” Discover The
Networks, January 2007,
Quotations from contemporary jihadists are taken from these two sources
unless otherwise noted.
Conservative Critic Blasts NAACP's Opposition to Caucasian Student Club
By Steve Brown CNSNews.com Staff Writer September 30, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - A leading conservative cultural critic took aim at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Monday. The reason: the group's opposition to a high school student's proposal to start a Caucasian Club.
"There is incredible public hypocrisy over the entrenched double standards that have come to be taken for granted by the American educational establishment," David Horowitz, author and president of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture told CNSNews.com. "Our (high school and college) campuses are the most segregated and racially discriminatory institutions in the entire country."
At issue is the idea presented by 15-year-old Lisa McClelland, a freshman at Freedom High School in Oakley, Calif. Last month she proposed starting a Caucasian Club at her school, which already has a Black Student Union, the Latinos Unidos for Latino students and the ALOHA club for Asian students. According to the Associated Press, McClelland and some of her friends felt slighted and began circulating a petition for the club to foster diversity, not racism.
"It's not racist because we're not excluding anyone, and we're just trying to solve the issues of racial disparity," the Associated Press quoted McClelland as saying. It described her ethnic background as American Indian, Latino, Dutch, German, Italian and Irish.
McClelland told reporters the club would be open to everybody of all backgrounds and would engage in activities such as fundraising and field trips to museums and other locations emphasizing Caucasian history.
But the East County Chapter of the NAACP said it was "vehemently" opposed to the name of the club, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"It's not culturally sensitive to the community we're addressing," the paper quoted chapter vice president Darnell Turner as saying. "The club, in name, seems like a backdoor approach to separation. From a historical perspective, this will bring up fears."
McClelland's motives for forming a Caucasian club are not the basis of Turner's own personal objections. Rather, Turner said he worries about how such a club might evolve.
"I think she's doing this for the right reasons, but what's going to happen when she graduates? What's it going to turn into?" Turner told the Washington Times, adding that he was speaking for himself, not the NAACP.
Horowitz called the NAACP "one of the most racially divisive and exploitive of organizations in the business," said\b he would warn McClelland that the NAACP would likely come after her, but that she should not take anything "personally."
Horowitz also said he would prefer that there were no race-oriented clubs.
"Personally, I don't want to see any clubs segregated by skin color, but they exist," Horowitz said. "I understand why people would react negatively to what this girl is doing, but I think it's completely understandable. And I understand what the NAACP is doing too, but you cannot have a double standard."
McClelland told Knight Ridder reporters she thought she was doing something "good" that needed to be done "a long time ago." She said she was "100 percent" motivated to keep pushing forward and that if her club was rejected at the high school level she would "protest and explore legal action."
So far, according to press reports, McClelland has gathered 300 signatures on the petition, not all of them from Caucasians.
Dan Smith, superintendent for the Liberty Union High School District, which includes Freedom High, told CNSNews.com Monday he had not yet seen McClelland's petition, but noted that schools were on a two-week break.
"The student (McClelland) has been encouraged to work with staff members to work within the system and use the process that's in place for establishing school clubs," Smith said.
That process, Smith said, involves finding a faculty advisor, drafting a constitution for the club and presenting it to the School Club Council (comprised of presidents of other school clubs). If approved, the club constitution would go to the Association of Student Body Leaders for review and then to the principal, who has final authority.
Debi Neely, McClelland's mother, expressed pride at what her daughter was doing.
"If it takes one 15-year-old to make a point ... that just because you're using the word 'Caucasian' doesn't mean you're being racist, then so be it," Neely told the San Francisco Chronicle .
Neely told reporters she has always taught her children to be open-minded. And as far as bigotry is concerned, Neely told the Contra Costa Times she believes it originates in the home. "You learn it from your past, your families," she said. "Mostly, kids [Lisa's] age today are like, 'Why is this still an issue?'"
Recent postings in an electronic forum on the school's web site () were mostly supportive of the idea.
"As a European-American of mainly Italian descent, I find it upsetting that so many other racial and ethnic groups can have their own clubs, but we can't," wrote Chris Forte. "Therefore, though I do not live anywhere near Freedom High, I support the Caucasian Club and would like to know if, as a business or "honorary member" (I'm an adult), if I can financially support it."
Another individual, identified only as Mike, posted a statement calling the club a positive idea.
"Regardless of the identity of the people behind the group, there is no justification for saying ethnicities A, B, C and D may have their clubs, organizations, and unions; however, ethnicity E cannot have one," Mike wrote. "No matter which ethnicity is 'E' (in this case, the Caucasians), it is a hypocritical statement to deny them what all other groups are allowed based simply on their ethnic status."
Yet another posting, from someone identifying himself only as Dan, did question the usefulness of a Caucasian club.
"What is the Caucasian club going to discuss? What special Caucasian issues are you going to be addressing? How we have the power in this country and have often abused it? How our ancestors came from Europe?" Dan asked. "I can see if this group focuses on Caucasian history, but then it should be called the Caucasian History club. Otherwise, isn't it just a way to seperate? (sic)"
Listen to audio for this story. E-mail a news tip to Steve Brown.
Obama's War on the Young
The David Horowitz Freedomcenter has produced a pamplet titled "Obama's War on the Young" by DiscovertheNetworks' editor John Perazzo. It shows how badly young people aged 18-29, the President's most enthusiastic demographic in his two elections, have been hurt by the agendas and philosophy of this administration.
This administration's massive expansion of the national debt lays a crushing burden on young people who are going to be responsible for paying it. Obama's dead economy has already brought about youth-unemployment levels exceeding anything we have witnessed in more than half a century. The crushing costs and substandard medicine associated with Obamacare will diminish young people's quality of life for generations to come.
In the place where young people live, higher education, Obama has placed the federal government in charge of the student-loan industry, thereby causing both tuition costs and student debt levels to rise dramatically despite proposed "reforms."
Barack Obama has put a mortgage on young peoples future they'll spend a lifetime paying off. Young people have been mugged by his policies. They are slowly learning that “Hope and change" are code words for disaster.
Credit: John Perazzo and David Horowitz.
| Dear Fellow
Our nation is facing a prolonged and perilous war with international terrorists bent on our destruction. Yet, a class of university students in Colorado -- a conservative state -- was given a mid-term exam with an essay question that told them to "Explain Why George Bush Is a War Criminal”.
When a student taking this exam wrote an essay on "Why Saddam Hussein Is a War Criminal" instead, she was given an F.” Since when do highly controversial -- let alone extremist -- questions have only one correct answer?
From the standpoint of educational values and training America's future leaders, American universities have never been in worse shape. Single-answer essay questions, commonplace now in American higher education, are just one of myriad problems on our campuses today. For example:
Students taking ROTC and attending class in the uniform of the United States military -- including female students -- are regularly told by their own professors that they are "baby killers”.
At Ball State University in conservative Indiana, a "peace studies" course called "Introduction to Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution”, amounts to an indoctrination for students to sympathize with our enemies. The lecturer isn't even qualified to teach the course --he's a saxophone professor! Students who voice opinions that differ from his are quickly silenced.
At Duke University, Weather terrorist Katherine Whitehorn, who served 14 years for bombing the Pentagon in the 1970s, was brought to campus in 2003 by the Black Students Department as a "human rights activist”. The previous year, the same university paid Professor Sami al-Arian to keynote a symposium on "National Security and Civil Liberties”.
Six months earlier, appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly exposed al-Arian's public statements calling for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" and said, "If I were the CIA I would follow you everywhere you go”.
Duke University apparently considered this a recommendation to give Al-Arian an academic platform. Al-Arian is currently in jail having been indicted by the Justice Department as the North American head of Palestine Islamic Jihad, responsible for the suicide bombing murders of more than 100 innocent civilians including several American citizens.
These horror stories reflect the capture of American universities by political ideologues who have no respect for academic institutions or for the country they live in. But their unchallenged reign is about to end.
Until now, universities have been like the weather. Everybody complains about them, but nobody knows what to do about them. Thanks to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and it creation – Students for Academic Freedom – this situation has now begun to change.
We know about the incidents in Colorado because they were included in testimony before the Education Committee of the Colorado legislature, which held public hearings about the abuses of students at universities in the state. The hearings were called in connection with legislation modeled on the Academic Bill of Rights, a document I authored for our campus organization, Students for Academic Freedom.
The Colorado bill, sponsored by Colorado Rep. Shawn Mitchell, passed the education committee in March. As a result, the presidents of all the public universities in Colorado met to agree on a "Memo of understanding”, a document that serves successfully to ensure the protections of our Academic Bill of Rights is reflected on Colorado's campuses.
These protections include guaranteeing intellectual diversity at Colorado institutions of higher learning, making sure that students have access to books that challenge university orthodoxy and that funds for student activities and guest speakers be fairly distributed to ensure a representation of diverse points of view.
A short time later the Academic Bill of Rights passed the Senate of the State of Georgia by a vote of 41-5. Senator Eric Johnson was the sponsor of the Georgia bill. Legislation based on the Academic Bill of Rights is now moving in seven other states, as well as the U.S. House of Representatives, sponsored by Congressman Jack Kingston of Kentucky.
At Brown University and Brooklyn College, the concept of intellectual diversity has been included as part of the campus diversity program.
All these victories were made possible by Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), an organization sponsored by the Center, which has grown to 140 local chapters on 140 campuses across the United States over the past 12 months.
The creation of SAF is a major part of our dynamic National Campaign for Academic Freedom.
Over the course of the National Campaign for Academic Freedom I have traveled to more than 250 schools to bring this topic to the forefront of campus debates. I've met with legislators, school alums, regents, administrators, community leaders, and individuals as concerned as I am with the state of our colleges and universities.
And, of course, I've met with students who have embraced this campaign because hey recognize they deserve more than half an education.
I've sought to engage groups and individuals in this campaign because, as I mentioned before, I believe it is one of the most important issues facing our nation's future … and we're seeing real success.
We have shown we can change the university world. We need your help to do it. There are fifty states and several thousand campuses. We have come up with an idea that works. We have created an organization that can do it. We need your financial help to hire more campus organizers; to create more informational literature for our student members; to publicize what we have done and recruit more support.
Will you help me today and support our National Campaign for Academic Freedom? I can tell you that we run a tight ship at the Center, so a contribution of $20, $25, $35, $50, $100 or more right now will go a long way toward making this campaign even more successful.
In addition, I have included a "call to action", a personalized letter from you to your governor asking him to support an Academic Bill of Rights for your schools. I would like you to sign it and return it with your contribution in the pre-addressed envelope I've provided.
Our budget of $235,500 can be reached if I am able to engage the support of Americans like you who realize that it is vital to bring genuine academic freedom back to our campuses".
In fact, if you will make a contribution of $25 or more today, I will send you a copy of our booklet Battle for Academic Freedom free. This booklet describes the campaign in detail, further illustrates the problem, and also conveys the difference we're making.
I have one last story to tell you, but before I do, I want to emphasize that our National Campaign for Academic Freedom is precisely that -- a battle to end the one sided indoctrination process that goes on at our schools and open the door wide to all possibilities, all theories, literature, history and the like.
With that in mind, I want to close by telling you a story about part of my visit to the University of Colorado at Denver.
At one point, I found myself walking down the hallway of CU-Denver's Political Science Department. On nearly every door and on every bulletin board were cartoons demeaning President Bush and members of his administration ...
… anti-war, anti-Republican, anti-conservative cartoons and messages flourished
Now for a moment try to imagine being a student walking down that hallway, seeking a professor, looking for advice. If you were a student who didn't agree with these postings you would naturally be intimidated.
It shouldn't be this way. It is not too much to expect professors to act professionally. A doctor, for example, doesn't ask you if you're Republican or Democrat before making a diagnosis. You trust he'll be professional. We have a right to the same type of trust on our campuses.
I know it is possible, and I know that our Academic Bill of Rights will act as a safeguard for that type of professionalism. And we will all benefit from the intellectual freedom these Rights will guarantee.
So, I encourage you again, to join with me in this important campaign. Please take a moment to sign your Academic Bill of Rights Endorsement and make a special contribution of $20, $25, $35, $50, $100 or more if possible, to our campaign right now. And remember, with your contribution of $25 or more today I'll send you a free copy of our booklet, Battle for Academic Freedom.
But act today. We need your support. Thank you. God bless you and God bless America.
P.S. Take a moment right now to sign your name to the
enclosed Academic Bill of Rights Endorsement and we'll forward it to your
governor. Then please make a contribution to our National Campaign for
Academic Freedom. We have a right -- and students and professors have a
right -- to expect professional behavior on our campuses. An Academic
Bill of Rights will guarantee it. Thanks again.
43 leaders oppose amnesty candidates
Pledge campaign against supporters of Senate bill, Pence compromise
Posted: July 7, 2006 - © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A group of 43 influential opinion leaders – including Alan Keyes, Phyllis Schlafly, David Horowitz and Swiftboat activist John O'Neill – have signed a declaration pledging to withhold support for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who votes for legislation providing "amnesty" or a guest-worker program for illegal aliens.
The members of a group called the Secure Borders Coalition say the immigration bill passed by the Senate and a plan proposed in the House by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., – which they call "amnesty lite" – are unacceptable.
They describe Pence's plan as providing for "the wholesale importation of aliens and a path to citizenship for them."
The leaders, who are circulating their declaration among other conservative leaders and grassroots activists, say their stance represents a major break with the Bush White House reminiscent of the battle over the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.
The declaration points out the Heritage Foundation estimates the Senate bill will bring in at least 60 million foreigners during the next 20 years.
"If the demographics of the so-called temporary workers are similar to those of the illegal aliens already here, more than half will be high school dropouts," the declaration states. "They will work low-paying jobs that require payment of little or no income tax. They will be 50 percent more likely to receive government benefits than those in non-immigrant households. And 42 percent of their children will be born out-of-wedlock – but all their children born in the U.S. will automatically become American citizens."
The cost of the Senate amnesty for illegal immigrants alone, according to the Heritage report, would be $50 billion a year for entitlements, including Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and federally funded legal representation.
"Any amnesty would move America toward a future like France, which is staggering under the burden of 'guest' workers who never went home," states the declaration.
The declaration says the plan proposed by Pence, hailed by supporters as a compromise, would "place no limit whatsoever on the numbers of foreign workers who could be imported by U.S. employers from any country anywhere in the world."
"By flooding this country with so many immigrants, legal and illegal, controlling immigration will become impossible and by dumping that burden onto an already-overburdened system of government benefits, these proposals are a threat to the future of the United States," the declaration states.
The declaration concludes: "Passing no bill is better than passing any new amnesty, legalization, guest worker or foreign worker program of any kind."
The backers "call for enforcement now" and favor a "policy of attrition of the illegal population through strong enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, which includes, first and foremost, the securing of our borders."
The signatories, whose affiliation is listed for identification only, are:
Peggy Birchfield, Religious Freedom Action Coalition;
Jim Boulet, Jr., English First;
Brent Bozell, Conservative Victory Committee;
Bay Buchanan, Team America PAC;
Mario A. Calabrese; Christine Carmouche, GrassTopsUSA;
Jim Clymer, Constitution Party National Committee;
Kristen N. Cooper, Foundation for American Christian Education;
Jerome R. Corsi, author;
Kay Daly; Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center;
James R. Edwards, Consultant to NumbersUSA;
Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch;
Don Feder, Don Feder Associates;
John Fonte; Paul Goedinghaus, Alamo Alliance;
William Green, RightMarch.com;
Ellen Grigsby, Open Doors USA;
Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring, Inc.;
Carl F. Horowitz, National Legal and Policy Center;
David Horowitz, Center for the Study of Popular Culture;
Joan L. Hueter, American Council for Immigration Reform;
Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Hope Christian Ministries;
Kevin Kearns, U.S. Business and Industry Council;
Alan Keyes, Declaration Alliance;
Mal Kline, Accuracy in Academia;
Gary G. Kreep, United States Justice Foundation;
Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies;
Deborah Lambert, Accuracy in Media;
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition;
K.C. McAlpin, ProEnglish;
William J. Murray, Religious Freedom Coalition;
John O'Neill, Swiftboat Veterans;
Howard Phillips, The Conservative Caucus;
Alan Potter, Constitution Party of Virginia;
Marc Rotterman, American Conservative Union;
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum;
Rick and Caryann Shaftan, Neighborhood Research/Mountaintop Media;
Rev. Lou Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition;
Chris Simcox, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps;
Kent Snyder, The Liberty Committee;
Mike Valerio, Mike and Helen Valerio Foundation;
Richard A. Viguerie, Conservative HQ.com.
“Anyone who bombs
the Pentagon has my vote.”
-- University of New Mexico Professor Richard Berthold
How do you feel about the torrent of anti-American venom that academics inject into the minds of our future leaders? How do you feel about paying for our children to get only half an education? I mean, after all, how can they be getting a good education when they’re getting only half the story?
You know me and what I stand for. My name is David Horowitz, Founder and President of Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), and I’m in the middle of a battle to take back our campuses.
I’ve written a new booklet describing what is happening on campuses across the country. It’s called “Political Bias in America’s Universities,” and I have a FREE copy of it available for you.
“Political Bias in America’s Universities” details not just what’s wrong in academics today, but also the steps you and I can take to restore sanity to our colleges and universities.
And when you read comments like that above you quickly realize that something is terribly wrong at our institutions of higher learning.
You see, beginning in the mid-1960s, the left made a concerted effort to take over our colleges and universities. The turmoil surrounding the Viet Nam war made our schools ripe for leftist pickings, and they did -- they methodically took over our campuses …
… now, four decades later, they have a stranglehold on hiring, teaching, and administering most of our schools in all 50 states!
As they’ve taken control, they’ve trampled free speech, virtually banished conservative professors, and turned our schools into little more than huge megaphones for anti-American rhetoric from coast to coast.
Today you can do or say anything you want on our campuses -- provided it’s laced with negative sentiment about our nation, our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our culture … you get the idea.
I believe it’s time to take our schools back. But I cannot do it alone, I need your help. A contribution gift of $25, $35, $50, $100 or more will enable us to build upon our success and fully fund the NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO TAKE BACK OUR CAMPUSES.
Help David Horowitz in
the battle to take back our campuses!
10 Acts of Muslim Genocide Against
From David Horowitz Freedom Center - www.frontpagemag.com - 10/27/2008
1. 2002: In 2002, 10,000 Christian men, women and children were
murdered by Muslum atackers after a radical Cleric declared them
"belligerent infidels" who deserved no mercy.
Muslim women told: For family's sake, commit suicide
Honor killers avoid prison by forcing victims to take own lives
March 29, 2009 © 2009 WorldNetDaily
Turkey's crackdown on the practice of honor killing has resulted in unintended consequences – instead of being murdered by a close male relative for bringing dishonor to their families, Muslim women are being pressured to commit suicide.
And the numbers of "honor suicides" are soaring, reported the UK's Independent.
Despite a 2005 change in the nation's penal code requiring a mandatory life sentence for honor killers, the number of women killed by male relatives is at a record level – more than 200 a year, half of all murders committed in Turkey. But it is that change in the law that has given rise to the growing phenomenon of women taking their own lives. Prior to 2005, killers were able to receive reduced sentences by claiming provocation.
Controversial DVD reveals fundamentalist Islamic mob justice in all its ugliness. 'The Stoning of Soraya M' refuses to let such horror go unremembered.
Elif, 18, from Batman in southeast Turkey, was told by her father she must kill herself so he would not be sent to prison for murdering her after she refused an offer of an arranged marriage with an older man.
"I loved my father so much, I was ready to commit suicide for him even though I hadn't done anything wrong," she said. "But I just couldn't go through with it. I love life too much."
The young woman was forced to flee and go into hiding. Her uncles and other relatives have been hunting her for the past eight months, even conducting an armed raid of a women's shelter where she had been.
"I managed to escape," said Elif. "When I was at school, a few girls I knew were killed by their families in the name of honor – one of them for simply receiving a text message from a boy."
In her hometown of Batman – nicknamed "Suicide City" – 75 percent of all suicides are committed now by women.
"I think most of these suicide cases are forced. There are just too many of them, it's too suspicious. But they're almost impossible to investigate," said Mustafa Peker, Batman's chief prosecutor.
Pekar said a woman's fate is usually determined by a family council where the alleged dishonor is discussed and the penalty pronounced. If the woman is to be killed, the youngest family member is frequently ordered to carry out the murder on the belief he will be treated more leniently by the courts. Woman ordered to take their own lives are usually locked in a room with a noose, a gun or rat poison until the deed is done.
Honor killers who are caught and convicted find themselves incarcerated with many others who've committed the same crime, said Mehmet, who was ordered by his family to kill his stepmother and her lover when he was 17.
"There were many other 'honor killers' in prison and we were treated with respect, even by the prison guards," Mehmet said.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=93252
Should have Disappeared in Two Generations
November 7, 2002 By Lance Kramer The Dartmouth Online
Economic disparities between the descendants of former slaves and free blacks largely disappeared within just two generations following emancipation, according to a study by Dartmouth economist Bruce Sacerdote that may lend ammunition to opponents of slavery reparations.
"There's nothing positive you can say about slavery," Sacerdote said. "But what the study shows is how little slavery actually has to do with today's problems. It seems rather unlikely that slavery itself caused a lot of the racism problems present in the U.S. today."
While the study does not set out to directly address the national debate on the topic, Sacerdote noted that his finding could be used to argue against slavery reparations.
Other economists and those involved in the reparations debate had varied reactions to the study.
Conservative thinker David Horowitz -- who made headlines over a year ago when he ran an advertisement in college newspapers nationwide citing reasons discounting the idea of slave reparations -- said the study's findings support his viewpoint.
"The study is a very strong argument against affirmative action and all these artificial programs set out by the government to rig the system," Horowitz said. "Even under the circumstances of extreme racism, it's obvious that slaves can make these advances in a short space and that once you remove the artificial barriers, the problem will solve itself."
However, supporters of reparations -- like Dorothy Benton Lewis, national co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America -- argued that the study's central question was irrelevant.
"The issue here isn't whether blacks could 'catch-up,'" Lewis said. "What [Sacerdote] is comparing here is victim to victim. Both of these groups were victims of white supremacy and that thanks to the attidudes of racist people, both groups have experienced the same outcome."
"If that's the kind of bogus research Dartmouth produces, I'm ashamed -- Dartmouth should be ashamed," Lewis continued.
Many studies to date have examined the differentials between blacks and whites. But Sacerdote's study, entitled "Slavery and the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital," is the first of its kind to specifically measure the status of the children and grandchildren of former slaves as compared to the descendants of free blacks.
"To date there's been no real empirical study of whether families were able to recover from the effects of slavery," Dartmouth economics professor Eric Edmonds said. "Bruce is really blazing the way in an important area. Prior to his study, this particular area has been ignored."
"It is an impressive piece of research," said Gavin Wright, an economics professor at Stanford University. "I would not have thought it possible to compare the descendants of free-born blacks, but Sacerdote shows that indeed it is. And the results are extremely interesting."
Sacerdote compared data on the children and grandchildren of free blacks and former slaves from the 1880 and 1920 U.S. censuses, concentrating on the outcome measures of literacy, school attendance, whether a child lives in a female-headed household and two measures of adult occupation.
Wright said that while each of the measures has its respective limitations, they nonetheless apply to the question at hand.
For example, the study found that the children of former slaves were less likely to be enrolled in school than the children of blacks born free. This gap disappeared, however, when examining the grandchildren of free blacks and former slaves.
"I was surprised at how quickly you get convergence between the two groups," Sacerdote said. "Today's biggest topic for domestic policy is black-white differentials, and the simplest explanation is that slavery was the direct cause."
Sacerdote noted, however, that emancipation itself did little to reduce economic disparities between blacks and whites. He said the results of his study indicate that other social factors must account for current social inequities between African-Americans and whites.
"It's certainly reasonable to think that past discrimination in the pre-civil rights era caused disadvantages that have persisted for a long time and that are still observable today," Sacerdote said. "But no one actually agrees on one specific factor to blame for these problems. There's something out there -- we just don't know what it is exactly."
According to the study, convergence between the two groups occurred substantially in every category except in the prevalence of female-headed households among the descendants of slaves. Sacerdote cited this as one possible way slavery could have had measurable and long-lasting effects on successive generations of black Americans.
Sacerdote and his colleagues emphasized that the point of his study was not to examine the legitimacy of affirmative action or slave reparations, though they accepted that the study will be used in many different ways since it has been released into public domain.
"A lot of the reparations
debate isn't at all about the long-term consequences of slavery. Rather,
people are trying to get paid the wages slaves were never paid," Professor
Edmonds said. "Bruce's study has nothing at all to do with that aspect of
the reparations debate. Rather, he is concerned about how individuals
recovered from the experience of slavery and the distortions in investments,
specialization, etc. that slavery implied."
Bush doesn't think America should be an
Joe Kovacs - November 19, 2006 - © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush believes America should be more of an idea without
borders than an actual place, a Republican congressman told WND in an
exclusive interview. PALM BEACH, Florida
|Home Back Top|