David Horowitz: Democratic Party is marching off the cliff
David Horowitz – Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey
David Horowitz – The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama
Published on Jan 1, 2017
December 14, 2016 – David Horowitz’s speaks about his new book, The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama, which is volume 7 of 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.
Horowitz on Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky
In Depth with David Horowitz
David Horowitz discusses Radicals and who has influence over the media
David Horowitz – Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
A Most Excellent Explanation of the Left’s Takeover of America
David Horowitz – What The Left Believes
David Horowitz – Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left
Rules for Radicals: What Constitutional Conservatives Should Know About Saul Alinsky
David Horowitz – The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America
David Horowitz interview on Charlie Rose (1997)
David Horowitz – Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (Part 1)
David Horowitz – Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (Part 2)
The Black Book of the American Left: The Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz
Published on Nov 13, 2013
David Horowitz spent the first part of his life in the world of the Communist-progressive left, a politics he inherited from his mother and father, and later in the New Left as one of its founders. When the wreckage he and his comrades had created became clear to him in the mid-1970s, he left. Three decades of second thoughts then made him this movement’s principal intellectual antagonist. “For better or worse,” as Horowitz writes in the preface to this, the first volume of his collected conservative writings, “I have been condemned to spend the rest of my days attempting to understand how the left pursues the agendas from which I have separated myself, and why.”
He has written several books with author Peter Collier, including four on prominent 20th-century American political families that had members elected to the presidency. He and Collier have collaborated on books about current cultural criticism. Horowitz has also worked as a columnist for Salon; its then-editor Joan Walsh described him as a “conservative provocateur.”
Horowitz was raised by parents who were members of the Communist Party USA during the Great Depression; they gave up their membership in 1956 after learning of Joseph Stalin‘s purges and abuses. From 1956–75, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected leftism completely and has since become a leading proponent of conservatism. Horowitz has recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospective books, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.
Horowitz is the son of Phil and Blanche Horowitz, who were high school teachers. His father taught English and his mother taught stenography. During years of labor organizing and the Great Depression, Phil and Blanche Horowitz were long-standing members of the American Communist Party and strong supporters of Joseph Stalin. They left the party after Khrushchev published his report in 1956 about Stalin’s excesses and terrorism of the Soviet populations.
According to Horowitz:
Underneath the ordinary surfaces of their lives, my parents and their friends thought of themselves as secret agents. The mission they had undertaken, and about which they could not speak freely except with each other, was not just an idea to them. It was more important to their sense of themselves than anything else they did. Nor were its tasks of a kind they could attend or ignore, depending on their moods. They were more like the obligations of a religious faith. Except that their faith was secular, and the millennium they awaited was being instituted, at that moment, in the very country that had become America’s enemy. It was this fact that made their ordinary lives precarious and their secrecy necessary. If they lived under a cloud of suspicion, it was the result of more than just their political passions. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima had created a terror in the minds of ordinary people. Newspapers reported on American spy rings working to steal atomic secrets for the Soviet state. When people read these stories, they inevitably thought of progressives like us. And so did we ourselves. Even if we never encountered a Soviet agent or engaged in a single illegal act, each of us knew that our commitment to socialism implied the obligation to commit treason, too.
After the death of Stalin in 1953, his father Phil Horowitz, commenting on how Stalin’s numerous official titles had to be divided among his successors, told his son, “You see what a genius Stalin was. It took five men to replace him.” According to Horowitz:
The publication of the Khrushchev Report was probably the greatest blow struck against the Soviet Empire during the Cold War. When my parents and their friends opened the morning Times and read its text, their world collapsed—and along with it their will to struggle. If the document was true, almost everything they had said and believed was false. Their secret mission had led them into waters so deep that its tide had overwhelmed them, taking with it the very meaning of their lives.
While in London, Horowitz became a close friend of Deutscher, and wrote a biography of him which was published in 1971. Horowitz wrote The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War. In January 1968, Horowitz returned to the United States, where he became co-editor of the New Left magazine Ramparts, based in northern California.
During the early 1970s, Horowitz developed a close friendship with Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party. Horowitz later portrayed Newton as equal parts gangster, terrorist, intellectual, and media celebrity. As part of their work together, Horowitz helped raise money for, and assisted the Panthers with, the running of a school for poor children in Oakland. He recommended that Newton hire Betty Van Patter as bookkeeper; she was then working for Ramparts. In December 1974, Van Patter’s body was found floating in San Francisco Harbor; she had been murdered. Horowitz has said he believes the Panthers were behind the killing.
Following this period, Horowitz rejected Marx and socialism, but kept quiet about his changing politics for nearly a decade. In the spring of 1985, Horowitz and longtime collaborator Peter Collier, who had also become conservative, wrote an article for The Washington Post Magazine entitled “Lefties for Reagan“, later retitled as “Goodbye to All That”. The article explained their change of views and recent decision to vote for a second term for Republican President Ronald Reagan. In 1986, Horowitz published “Why I Am No Longer a Leftist” in The Village Voice.
In May 1989, Horowitz, Ronald Radosh, and Peter Collier travelled to Poland for a conference in Kraków calling for the end of Communism. After marching with Polish dissidents in an anti-regime protest, Horowitz spoke about his changing thoughts and why he believed that socialism could not create their future. He said his dream was for the people of Poland to be free.
In 1992, Horowitz and Collier founded Heterodoxy, a monthly magazine focused on exposing what it described as excessive political correctness on United States college and university campuses. It was “meant to have the feel of a samizdat publication inside the gulag of the PC [politically correct] university.” The tabloid was directed at university students, whom Horowitz viewed as being indoctrinated by the entrenched Left in American academia. He has maintained his assault on the political left to the present day. Horowitz wrote in his memoir Radical Son that he thought universities were no longer effective in presenting both sides of political arguments. He thought “left-wing professors” had created a kind of “political terror” on campuses.
In a column in Salon magazine, where he is regularly published, Horowitz described his opposition to reparations for slavery. He believed that it represented racism against blacks, as it defined them only in terms of having descended from slaves. He argues that applying labels like “descendants of slaves” to blacks was damaging and would serve to segregate them from mainstream society.
In keeping with his provocateur position, in 2001 during Black History Month Horowitz purchased, or attempted to purchase, advertising space in several student American university publications to express his opposition to reparations for slavery. Many student papers refused to sell him ad space; at some schools, papers which carried his ads were stolen or destroyed. Editor Joan Walsh of Salon wrote that the furor had given Horowitz an overwhelming amount of free publicity.
Cloud replied in Inside Higher Ed that her experience demonstrates that Horowitz damages professors’ lives by his accusations and that he needs to be viewed as more than a political opponent.
Horowitz’s attacks have been significant. People who read the book or his Web site regularly send letters to university officials asking for her to be fired. Personally, she has received—mostly via e-mail—”physical threats, threats of removing my daughter from my custody, threats of sexual assaults, horrible disgusting gendered things,” she said. That Horowitz doesn’t send these isn’t the point, she said. “He builds a climate and culture that emboldens people,” and as a result, shouldn’t be seen as a defender of academic freedom, but as its enemy.
After discussion, the National Communication Association decided against granting Horowitz a spot as a panelist at its national conference in 2008. He had offered to forego the $7,000 speaking fee originally requested. He wrote in Inside Higher Ed, “The fact that no academic group has had the balls to invite me says a lot about the ability of academic associations to discuss important issues if a political minority wants to censor them.” An association official said the decision was based in part on Horowitz’s request to be provided with a stipend for $500 to hire a personal bodyguard. Association officials decided that having a bodyguard present “communicates the expectation of confrontation and violence.”
Horowitz appeared in Occupy Unmasked, a 2012 documentary portraying the Occupy Wall Street movement as a sinister organization formed to violently destroy the American government.
In the early 21st century, Horowitz has concentrated on issues of academic freedom, wanting to protect conservative viewpoints. He, Eli Lehrer, and Andrew Jones published a pamphlet, “Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities” (2004), in which they find the ratio of Democrats to Republicans at 32 schools to be more than 10 to 1.
Horowitz’s book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (2006), criticizes individual professors for, as he alleges, engaging in indoctrination rather than a disinterested pursuit of knowledge. He says his campaign for academic freedom is ideologically neutral. He published an Academic Bill of Rights (ABR), which he proposes to eliminate political bias in university hiring and grading. Horowitz says that conservatives, and particularly Republican Party members, are systematically excluded from faculties, citing statistical studies on faculty party affiliation. Critics such as academic Stanley Fish have argued that “academic diversity”, as Horowitz defines it, is not a legitimate academic value, and that no endorsement of “diversity” can be absolute.
In 2004 the Georgia General Assembly passed a resolution on a 41–5 vote to adopt a version of the ABR for state educational institutions.
In Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives created a special legislative committee to investigate issues of academic freedom, including whether students who hold unpopular views need more protection. In November 2006 it reported that it had not found evidence of problems [clarification needed] with students’ rights.
Horowitz has been married four times. He married Elissa Krauthamer, in a Yonkers, New York synagogue on June 14, 1959. They had four children together: Jonathan Daniel, Ben, Sarah Rose (deceased), and Mrs. Anne Pilat. Their daughter Sarah Rose Horowitz died in March 2008 at age 44 from Turner syndrome-related heart complications. She had been a teacher, writer and human rights activist. She is the subject of Horowitz’s 2009 book, A Cracking of the Heart.
As an activist, she had cooked meals for the homeless, stood vigil at San Quentin on nights when the state of California executed prisoners, worked with autistic children in public schools and, with the American Jewish World Service, helped rebuild homes in El Salvador after a hurricane, and traveled to India to oppose child labor. In a review of Horowitz’s book, FrontPage magazine associate editor David Swindle wrote that she fused “the painful lessons of her father’s life with a mystical Judaism to complete the task he never could: showing how the Left could save itself from self-destruction.”
Horowitz’s second marriage, to Sam Moorman, ended in divorce. On June 24, 1990, Horowitz married Shay Marlowe in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony conducted at the Pacific Jewish Center by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.They divorced. Horowitz’s fourth and present marriage is to April Mullvain.
Politico claims that Horowitz’s activities, like the David Horowitz Freedom Center are funded in part by Aubrey & Joyce Chernick and The Bradley Foundation. Politico claimed that during 2008-2010, “the lion’s share of the $920,000 it [David Horowitz Freedom Center] provided over the past three years to Jihad Watch came from Chernick”.
Controversy and criticism
Some of Horowitz’s accounts of U.S. colleges and universities as bastions of liberal indoctrination have been disputed. For example, Horowitz alleged that a University of Northern Colorado student received a failing grade on a final exam for refusing to write an essay arguing that George W. Bush is a war criminal. A spokeswoman for the university said that the test question was not as described by Horowitz and that there were nonpolitical reasons for the grade, which was not an F.
Horowitz identified the professor as Robert Dunkley, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Northern Colorado. Dunkley said Horowitz made him an example of “liberal bias” in academia and yet, “Dunkley said that he comes from a Republican family, is a registered Republican and considers himself politically independent, taking pride in never having voted a straight party ticket,” according to Inside Higher Ed magazine.In another instance, Horowitz said that a Pennsylvania State Universitybiology professor showed his students the film Fahrenheit 9/11 just before the 2004 election in an attempt to influence their votes. Pressed by Inside Higher Ed, Horowitz later retracted this claim.
Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 “right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.” Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on “black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs” and of “attack[ing] minority ‘demands for special treatment’ as ‘only necessary because some blacks can’t seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,’ rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism.”[not in citation given]
Horowitz published an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, saying that “[this reminder] that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers” was a response to demands that only whites pay reparations to blacks. He said he never held Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery. He said that Berlet’s accusation of racism was a “calculated lie” and asked that the report be removed. The SPLC refused Horowitz’s request. Horowitz has criticized Berlet and the SPLC on his website and personal blog.
Horowitz has used university student publications and lectures at universities as venues for publishing provocative advertisements or lecturing on issues related to Islamic student and other organizations. In April 2008, his ‘David Horowitz Freedom Center’ advertised in the Daily Nexus, the University of California Santa Barbara school newspaper, saying that the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) had links with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Hamas.
In May 2008, Horowitz, speaking at UCSB, said that the Muslim Students’ Association supports “a second Holocaust of the Jews”. The MSA said they were a peaceful organization and not a political group. The MSA’s faculty adviser said the group had “been involved in interfaith activities with Jewish student groups, and they’ve been involved in charity work for national disaster relief.” Horowitz ran the ad in The GW Hatchet, the student newspaper of George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Jake Sherman, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, said claims the MSA was radical were “ludicrous”. He vowed to review his newspaper’s editorial and advertising policies.
Horowitz published a 2007 piece in the Columbia University student newspaper, saying that, according to [unnamed and undocumented] public opinion polls, “between 150 million and 750 million Muslims support a holy war against Christians, Jews and other Muslims.” Speaking at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in February 2010, Horowitz compared Islamists to Nazis, saying: “Islamists are worse than the Nazis, because even the Nazis did not tell the world that they want to exterminate the Jews.”
Horowitz created a campaign for what he called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” in parody of multicultural awareness activities. He helped arrange for leading critics of radical Islam to speak at more than a hundred college campuses in October 2007. As a speaker he has met with intense hostility.
In a 2011 review of anti-Islamic activists in the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified Horowitz as one of 10 people in the United States’ “Anti-Muslim Inner Circle”.
The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War (1971) ISBN 0-8090-0107-1 (also published by Penguin under the title “From Yalta to Vietnam” in a revised edition in 1967.)
The First Frontier: The Indian Wars and America’s Origins, 1607–1776 (1978) ISBN 0-671-22534-0
Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties, ed. by Peter Collier and David Horowitz (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1989) ISBN 0-8191-7148-4
Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the ’60s, by Peter Collier and David Horowitz (New York: Summit Books/Simon & Schuster, 1989) ISBN 0-671-66752-1
Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (New York: The Free Press, 1997) autobiography ISBN 0-684-82793-X
The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice (Prima Lifestyles, 1997) ISBN 0-7615-0942-9
Fox’s Powers and Tantaros Battle over Ferguson Blame Cops Got Shot ‘Before Obama’
Megyn Kelly Debunks The “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Symbol For Ferguson Protests
Ferguson Protestors Praise Police Shooting
Michael Brown vs Furgoson Police:” Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” is Totally False Narration?
Dem Reps Make ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Protest Gesture on House Floor
OBAMA on OFFICER WILSON & FERGUSON RIOTS – Report Exposed Racially Biased System
Obama Responds to Grand Jury Decision in Ferguson Shooting Case
Obama on Ferguson Police Shooting Protests
Hands Up Don’t Shoot/ Berkeley, CA
TheNewsCommeneter Via FoxNews ‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot’ a Lie
Two officers shot outside Ferguson police dept.
Two cops shot in Ferguson after chief resigns
Two Cops Shot in Ferguson, Video Timeline
FOX News Now: Press Conference on Cops Shot in Ferguson
CNN’s Don Lemon Wonders If ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Is A ‘False Narrative’
NFL Stars Do “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Protest During Game, Cops Furious
The Truth About Michael Brown and the Ferguson Riots
‘Searing’ Ferguson report claims revenue came before public safety
State, county police take over Ferguson
By Greg Botelho
With tensions running high after the shooting of two officers in Ferguson, Missouri, state and county police are once again taking over protest security in the St. Louis suburb.
St. Louis County Police and the Missouri State Highway Patrol will “assume command of the security detail regarding protests” at 6 p.m. (7 p.m. ET), St. Louis County Police said in a statement.
Ferguson Police will remain responsible for routine policing services in the city, the statement said.
The takeover comes less than a day after two police officers standing guard outside Ferguson police headquarters were shot in what St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar called an “ambush,” spurring a manhunt for those responsible for targeting the line of officers.
“We could have buried two police officers,” Belmar told reporters. “… I feel very confident that whoever did this … came there for whatever nefarious reason that it was.”
This isn’t the first time that county police and state troopers have stepped in to handle protest security.
When clashes between police and protesters boiled over last year, Missouri’s governor declared a state of emergency and tapped the State Highway Patrol to take over. After that emergency declaration expired in December, Ferguson Police resumed command of protest security. Officers from other agencies have continued to provide backup at larger protests.
Protest organizers are meeting to determine whether they’ll demonstrate again Thursday night.
“The most important thing is the safety of the protesters, so we’re meeting to organize what tonight would look like, if we’re coming out, because we know that tensions are high within the Police Department after the incident that occurred last night, so we just want to make sure that people are safe,” said Kayla Reed of the Organization for Black Struggle.
If protesters return, they’ll see a different security situation on the streets, said Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association.
“It’s a very tense situation, as you can well imagine,” he told CNN’s “The Situation Room.” “In my communications as a union official with police commanders, I’ve been assured that tactics will be different tonight. I assume that means not only more officers, but a wider perimeter, with coverage, perhaps, of these blind spots from which the shots were fired last night.”
The shots rang out shortly after midnight, at the end of a protest against the Ferguson Police Department. That department has been under fire since one of its officers, Darren Wilson, shot and killed black teen Michael Brown in August, and more recently since a scathing U.S. Department of Justice report came out documenting a pattern of racial discrimination. Police Chief Thomas Jackson resigned from his post Wednesday.
While the demonstrators’ focus was Ferguson, neither of the wounded officers works in that St. Louis suburb’s police department.
Two officers shot outside Ferguson Police Department01:56
One is from Webster Groves, a city about 13 miles south of Ferguson. The officer — a 32-year-old with seven years’ experience — was shot at the high point of his cheek, just under his right eye, Belmar said. The bullet that hit him was still lodged behind his ear as of late Thursday morning.
The other wounded officer was hit in the shoulder and the bullet came out the middle of his back, Belmar said. He is a 41-year-old from St. Louis County Police who has been in law enforcement for the past 14 years.
Both men were treated and released from St. Louis’ Barnes Jewish Hospital, according to a Thursday morning post on the St. Louis County Police’s Facebook page.
The officers were standing next to each other when they were struck, Belmar said.
3 questioned by investigators
Authorities haven’t indicated they know who shot the officers, though Belmar did say “several people … have been very forthright with” investigators. Police have also recovered shell casings that may be tied to the shooting.
Officers shot amid Ferguson protests 11 photos
Heavily armed officers converged on one Ferguson home as part of the investigation, St. Louis County police spokesman Brian Schellman said. Video from CNN affiliate KMOV showed three of them trying to pry a hole in the roof, while others went through the front door of the one-story residence.
By late morning, when the operation was over, two men and one woman were being questioned by police, according to Shawn McGuire, another police spokesman. McGuire said no one was officially in custody in the case at that point.
It’s not known what connection, if any, the shooter or shooters had to Wednesday night’s protest.
Belmar noted this isn’t the first time gunshots have rung out in and around demonstration sites since the protests began. It is the first time, though, that an officer has been hit.
“I think it’s a miracle that we haven’t had any instances similar to this over the summer and fall, (given) the amount of gunfire,” said the chief.
‘Muzzle flashes … about 125 yards away’
At its peak, some 150 protesters congregated Wednesday night in front of the Ferguson police station, Belmar said. That number had fallen by about half, with the chants over, when gunfire erupted.
The shots came from a hill overlooking the station, according to witnesses. Belmar said officers saw “muzzle flashes … about 125 yards away.”
One demonstrator, DeRay McKesson, told CNN he has no “indication that leads me to believe that … a protester … did it,” saying he and fellow demonstrators believe in nonviolence.
Belmar believes someone targeted the police, who have braved heated criticism for months, for a reason. “These police officers were standing there, and they were shot just because they were police officers,” he said.
Brown’s parents condemned the shooting as “senseless,” saying such violence against law enforcement “will not be tolerated.”
So did the White House, with a tweet signed with President Barack Obama’s initials offering prayers for the wounded officers and calling “violence against police … unacceptable.”
And U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — who visited Ferguson in the aftermath of Brown’s shooting and unrest that spurred — decried what happened as a “heinous and cowardly (and) repugnant attack.”
“What happened last night was a pure ambush,” Holder said. “This was not someone trying to bring healing to Ferguson. This was a damn punk who was trying to sow discord.”
‘Armed phalanx of officers’
One irony is that, for some protesters, Wednesday was a day to celebrate: They’d called for Jackson’s resignation for months, and finally it was happening.
But for others, it was not enough. That’s why they congregated in Ferguson, to demand changes like disbanding the city’s entire Police Department and ousting Mayor James Knowles. The now familiar racial overtones hung over the protests, a product of the fact that Brown was African-American and Wilson is white, along with the DoJ report on Ferguson.
Some chanted, “Racist cops have got to go.” Others held signs with slogans such as “They don’t really care about us!” and “Black lives matter.”
“It was a great group (with) great, great energy,” protester Markus Loehrer said.
Three were arrested in a crowd Belmar characterized as agitated and “pretty rowdy” at times, though McKesson said one fight that occurred had nothing to do with the protests. About 70 law enforcement officers from multiple departments came in to stand in front of the station, as they have on many other nights — with the turnout of demonstrators the highest since the November grand jury decision not to indict Wilson, albeit smaller than the days immediately after Brown’s death.
These protesters were in the process of leaving when gunfire erupted “no less than 100 feet” away, Kayla Reed said. McKesson, at the base of the hill where he and others say the bullets came from, heard about four shots.
Several police gathered around their wounded comrades, while others took cover and drew their guns.
“It was kind of shocking to see this armed phalanx of officers to immediately pull their weapons,” Loehrer said.
‘Very difficult’ environment
So what happens next?
There’s the manhunt, of course. And then there’s the likelihood of more protests — and the possibility of more violence as well.
Even though Jackson, City Manager John Shaw, Ferguson’s top court clerk and two police officers are gone or on their way out, some activists are vowing to keep pressing for change.
“We aren’t satisfied with this,” Reed said of the police chief’s exit. “It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not what total justice looks like in Ferguson.”
Jackson expressed optimism that, in his view, the Justice Department report concluded that Ferguson “can do the tough work to see this through and emerge the best small town it can be.”
But what are the prospects after Thursday’s shooting?
Loehrer worried that the shooting will undercut the protesters’ message against discrimination and violence.
“It’s a shame that somebody had to take advantage of this great group,” he said, “to do something so despicable.”
And Belmar said it underscores the fact that, eight months after Brown’s death, the streets of Ferguson are still simmering and law enforcement officers there are on edge.
“This is beginning at times to be very difficult for any law enforcement agencies, anywhere, to really wrap their arms around,” he said. “I want everybody … to understand how difficult this is.”
A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it “exists to strengthen Black America’s political voice,” claimed that my book espouses a “white supremacist ideology.” Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, “The End of White America.”
Media Matters parroted the party line: He has blasphemed!
A Human Rights Campaign that bills itself as America’s leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people said that Buchanan’s “extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world.”
Their rage was triggered by a remark to NPR’s Diane Rehm — that I believe homosexual acts to be “unnatural and immoral.”
On Nov. 2, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has sought to have me censored for 22 years, piled on. …”
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (1 of 8)
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (2 of 8)
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (3 of 8)
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (4 of 8)
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (5 of 8)
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (6 of 8)
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (7 of 8)
How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (8 of 8)
Protesters at David Horowitz’s speech at UT Austin
David Horowitz at UT Austin – Part 2
David Horowitz at UT Austin – Part 3
David Horowitz at UT Austin – Part 4
David Horowitz at UT Austin – Part 5
David Horowitz at UT Austin – Part 6
David Horowitz at UT Austin – Q&A
Background Artilces and Videos
“…David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer and activist. The son of two life-long members of the Communist Party, and a former supporter of Marxism as well as a former member of the New Left in the 1960s, Horowitz later renounced his “left-wing political radicalism” and became an advocate for conservatism.
He is a founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), and has served as president of that organization for many years. He is the editor of the conservative website FrontPage Magazine, and his writings can be read on news sites and publications, including the conservative magazine NewsMax. He founded the activist group Students for Academic Freedom. …”
“…The David Horowitz Freedom Center is a conservative foundation founded in 1988 by political activist David Horowitz and his long-time collaborator, co-author, and friend, Peter Collier. It was established with funding from conservative philanthropies, such as the Olin Foundation the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
“…The Center has the following ongoing programs.
FrontPage Magazine — an online “conservative” political magazine and website, edited by Horowitz, that is the successor to Heterodoxy (see below). Its main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and terrorism.
Discover the Networks (previously, and still often referred to as, “Discover the Network”) – A database of what it describes as organizations and “activists for leftwing agendas and causes — egalitarians, socialists, and opponents of American ‘imperialism'”, with a Java applet to display their interconnections in graphic form.This description can include Jihadists, “anti-American” strains of anti-Iraq War activists, etc. After two years of development, went online in February, 2005, with a staff of two at a cost of about $500,000. 
Students for Academic Freedom– claims chapters on 150 campuses. Opposes “indoctrination”.
Wednesday Morning Club – In 2006 the Center held twenty-one Wednesday Morning Club events with speakers ranging from former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson, Wafa Sultan, General Georges Sada,Judge Charles W. Pickering, Dennis Prager, Shelby Steele and Melanie Morgan with Catherine Moy. Speakers in 2007 include Dinesh D’Souza, Dore Gold, Bruce Herschensohn and John O’Sullivan. In previous years speakers have included then-Governor George W. Bush (1999), then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Robert Bork, Representatives Tom DeLay and Henry Hyde, Senators Trent Lott, Bill Frist and Joseph Lieberman, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and George Will.
Jihad Watch (or Jihadwatch; also Dhimmi Watch) – blogs and articles attacking Islam.
The Individual Rights Foundation – Organization of lawyers to fight speech codes and political correctness on campuses and elsewhere. Participated as Amicus Curiae in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the successful defense of the Boy Scouts of America against the ACLU in the Supreme Court. 
Libertas – A forum for promoting conservative films in Hollywood. It presents the conservative Liberty Film Festival.
Restoration Weekend – Annual conservative fundraising and networking event. …”