Posts tagged "David Horowitz"

Radio host and Fox personality Sean Hannity hosted TruthRevolt.com founder David Horowitz to engage in an unimpeded rant that described President Obama as a “menace to American security” and accused Democrats and the “American left” of pushing the nation toward a modern day Holocaust. Hannity’s promotion of the extreme figure may have completed his transition from conservative mouth piece to right-wing fringe promoter.

On the April 22 edition of his radio show, Hannity discussed the alleged growth of anti-Semitism around the world, comparing the phenomenon with Obama’s purported support of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hannity asked his guests, Horowitz and writer Joel Rosenberg, whether anti-Semitism in recent news stories had the potential of turning into a “modern day Holocaust.” Horowitz replied (emphasis added):

HOROWITZ: I think that’s exactly accurate. There’s normal anti-Semitism which has been going on for thousands of years. And this Kansas City shooter, I mean he’s a Klu Klux Klaner, he’s a Democrat — lifelong Democrat, Klu Klux Klan racist and anti-Semite. But he’s obviously been encouraged. The irony of course is that he killed three Christians. Um, obviously encouraged by the American left. Max Blumenthal, who is the misbegotten son of Sidney Blumenthal who worked for the Clintons in the Clinton White House, has written a book filled with Jew hatred about Israel, which this guy read and cited as one of his inspirations. I actually pointed this out in a book I wrote about ten years ago. The alliance between the American left and the Islamo - I don’t call them Islamo-Fascists anymore, they’re Nazis. They preach the same doctrine that the Nazis did, they were allied with the Nazis during the second World War. The destruction of Israel, which is welcomed by you know, like I say normal anti-Semites. But after the Second World War, there was a certain intolerance towards these types of attitudes thanks to the American left which goes right into the White House. Obama is also responsible for this - attacking Israel.

After Rosenberg disagreed with Horowitz’ claim of the growth of anti-Semitism in the American left, Horowitz retorted, ”On the campuses across this country the American left is calling for the destruction of Israel. How can you say there’s no anti-Semitism? The American left is the fountainhead of anti-Semitism now,” concluding that it is only a matter of time before the left commits violence against Jews.

Hannity refused to rebuke Horowitz’ comments, actually agreeing with Horowitz characterization adding that Secretary of State John Kerry blamed Israel for the breakdown in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authorities. Hannity then allowed Horowitz to attack Obama directly by asking “Why does the president constantly think that he can negotiate with fanatics?” Horowitz responded that Obama is an “anti-American president” and a “menace to American security” (emphasis added):

HOROWITZ: This administration is enabling Iran. Obama could care less if the Jews are killed in the Middle-East. Obama - to answer your question, Sean - Obama is an anti-American president.

[…]

But because Obama is black and because he’s a leftist he’s completely protected by the press. Nobody holds him to account. We live in a kind of surreal universe where people will not say the truth. And the truth is that Barrack Obama is a menace to American security, and the sooner - and of course you can’t impeach him because you can’t impeach the first black president.

Horowitz’s rhetoric shouldn’t have been a surprise to Hannity, as he has a history of comparing liberals with terrorists and accusing people of being “Nazis.”

But Hannity’s promotion of such an extreme figure didn’t come in a vacuum. Recently Hannity has gained ridicule on the left and prominence in the fringes of the right-wing after supporting lawless rancher Cliven Bundy, who refused to pay grazing fees after his cows used federal land for over twenty years. Bundy praised Hannity, while warning of an impending civil war after an armed standoff between federal agents and armed militia supporting Bundy.

As if supporting a lawless rancher and encouraging extreme rhetoric towards the president wasn’t enough, Hannity recently added to his fringe resume by calling a nun a “Communist” for saying Paul Ryan’s budget hurt the poor.

h/t: Thomas Bishop at MMFA

Readers may or may not remember Eric Allen Bell—he’s the filmmaker and former “Kos Kid” who, back in 2010, was supportive of the construction of the Murfreesboro mosque, which had become one of the lightning rods of the anti-mosque hysteria that began sweeping the nation that summer.

Please bear with me here as this story gets quite labyrinthine, which is not unusual when looking into the history of people who fancy themselves to be brave counter-Jihadists and human rights advocates, but who are in reality nothing more than rank bigots with loud voices and a cadre of like-minded followers. Understanding the history of such people, the organizations they create, and their relationships to each other is key to being fully aware of their objectives.

Back to Mr. Bell. In January 2012 in a Daily Kos “diary” (a blog post by Daily Kos users), Bell suddenly began railing against the term “Islamophobia”, asserting that the website Loonwatch was involved in apologetics for radical Islam, and expressing sympathy for anti-Muslim propagandist & white nationalist admirer, Robert Spencer. Still, he held off praising the likes of anti-Muslim hate blogger Pamela Geller, but that didn’t last long.

Shortly thereafter, in March 2012, Bell penned an article for FrontPage Magazine praising Robert Spencer and his cohort Pamela Geller, which Spencer proudly displayed on his website. For the record, FrontPage Magazine is edited by David Horowitz who, along with Spencer & Geller, is part of the “anti-Muslim inner circle” as described in a 2011 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Also of note, in 2011 both Spencer & Horowitz saw fit to lump the Anti-defamation League in with the “Jihadist apologists” via blog posts for National Review Online. Why would they attack a respected 100-year-old organization that “fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all”? Because the ADL had the temerity to publish a highly critical report about Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) which exposed its ties to other extremist anti-Muslim groups & individuals (SIOA is headed by Spencer & Geller ).1

I’m pointing all this out to show that there’s a pattern here: There are people who are united by hatred. People whose hatred is so blinding that they’ll viciously attack and smear anyone who points out their bigotry, lies, associations with and/or support for some of the most morally reprehensible groups and individuals in existence.

Finally, again, we return to Mr. Bell. We left him after his early 2011 “epiphany”, which caused the veil of liberalism to finally drop from his eyes and allow him to see how courageous and righteous Spencer & Geller’s messages of fear and loathing truly are. But wait—there was yet another epiphany to come!

How typical. Even when they do have “facts”, they don’t. They deal primarily in misinformation, disinformation, innuendo, and vague or tenuous “links” (see Frank Gaffney’s attempts to smear Grover Norquist and CIA Director John Brennan, or Michele Bachmann’s smear of Huma Abedin).

Guess what happened next? Last month Bell began posting anti-Semitic comments on Facebook, such as this Timeline Photo with a graphic showing the largest media companies (larger version found here) with a caption asking:

These 6 companies control over 90% of the media. What religion must one belong to, in order to have a chance at being CEO of one of these companies? BONUS QUESTION: What name or names is a person called, for even raising this basic and reasonable question?

Hmm, let me guess… Jewish & anti-Semite?

Further down, in response to a comment, he replies:

It isn’t “the Jews” or even most Jews. Look at it the other way around. Is there a head of a TV network or a movie studio that is not Jewish? The answer is almost always no. Look at who runs the IMF, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury, just to name a few. Is it “the Jews”? No. But is it almost exclusively Jewish? Yes.
February 11 at 12:10pm

Nope, nothing anti-Semitic there. After all, he issued a disclaimer in the first sentence, so that means anything he says after that is inoculated against being anti-Semitic, right? RIGHT?? Like if you say, “It isn’t ‘the Muslims’ or even most Muslims, but are terrorists almost exclusively Muslim?” then you’re not an Islamophobe. Oh wait, but that’s different… No, it’s NOT—it’s exactly the same.

In the following he whines about the twin evils of Islam & Judaism:

See, here is how it works. You can criticize any religion except Islam, because then the death threats come. And if you criticize Judaism, you get called a Nazi and your reputation will be destroyed. Religion poisons everything.
February 10 at 4:45pm

Just like Islam, one must distinguish between the rank and file and the leadership. And just like as [sic] in Islam, there is much spin control and rationalization regarding the darker passages in Judaism, especially as they pertain to elitism and supremacy.
February 10 at 4:51pm

He gets seriously creepy in this post where he opens with a comment criticizing Islam & religion in general, then moves on to Jews again:

Will there ever be a day when hundreds of millions of women are not suffering under Islamic gender apartheid? Will there ever be a day when hundreds of millions of children are not brainwashed into believing superstitions, for fear of burning in hell when they die? Will there ever be a day when a small but elite group no longer takes from others, under the premise that they are “god’s chosen”? […]

One more shot at Jews:

So you believe that “god” gave a plot of land to his “chosen people”?
February 18 at 3:24am

Here’s where he ends up in a really dark place:

Nature creates dominance hierarchies. We need more low functioning people to do the manual labor. We need fewer high functioning people to lead. To meany [sic] leaders and we have a conflict. Historically there are probably more highly intelligent people living on this planet than ever before. That there are also a lot of mindless, superstitious breeders is nothing new.
February 18 at 5:36am

It goes on with more disclaimers and Facebook commenters who excuse anti-Muslim bigotry, but balk at anti-Semitism. I couldn’t stomach any more.

This is the sort of person Spencer, Geller, Horowitz, et al. embrace and welcome into the fold. These are the people Charles backed away from, with good reason and to his credit.

On Monday, People For the American Way delivered a petition with 178,000 signatures to House Speaker John Boehner calling for the removal of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Bachmann, one of Congress’ leading purveyors of conspiracy theories, earned rebukes from Boehner and others last year when she accused several Muslim-American government employees, include top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, of being secret agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The petition, to put it mildly, hit a nerve among Bachmann’s allies in the anti-Muslim Right. FrontPageMag, an online outfit led by David Horowitz, has published a full three articles defending Bachmann and accusing PFAW of “smearing” the “vindicated” Bachmann by launching an “all-out war” on her.  In one article, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch argues, “If they really had any genuine concern for the American way, instead of calling for her removal from the Intelligence committee, the People for the American Way would be calling for Bachmann to be appointed to chair that committee.”

Yesterday, Horowitz launched his own petition, titled, ironically, “Stop the Witch Hunt Against Rep. Bachmann.”

Horowitz and Spencer aren’t the only ones coming to Bachmann’s defense. The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney, who was the source of the bulk of Bachmann’s accusations against Abedin, and conservative columnist Diana West discussed the petition on Wednesday’s edition of Secure Freedom Radio. People For the American Way, Gaffney suggested, is part of the “Red-Green Axis” and should be called instead “People For the Islamist Way.”

H/T: Miranda Blue at RWW

AMSTERDAM/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Anti-Islam groups in America have provided financial support to Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an anti-immigration campaigner who is seeking re-election to the Dutch parliament this week.

While this is not illegal in the Netherlands, it sheds light on the international connections of Wilders, whose Freedom Party is the least transparent Dutch parliamentary group and a rallying point for Europe’s far right.

Wilders’ party is self-funded, unlike other Dutch parties that are subsidized by the government. It does not, therefore, have to meet the same disclosure requirements.

Groups in America seeking to counter Islamic influence in the West say they funded police protection and paid legal costs for Wilders whose party is polling in fourth place before the Sept 12 election.

Wilders’ ideas - calling for a halt to non-Western immigration and bans on Muslim headscarfs and the construction of mosques - have struck a chord in mainstream politics beyond the Netherlands. France banned clothing that covers the face in April 2011 and Belgium followed suit in July of the same year. Switzerland barred the construction of new minarets following a referendum in 2009.

The Middle East Forum, a pro-Israeli think tank based in Philadelphia, funded Wilders’ legal defense in 2010 and 2011 against Dutch charges of inciting racial hatred, its director Daniel Pipes said.

VISITS TO THE UNITED STATES

Wilders, 49, first became a member of the Dutch parliament for the pro-business Liberal Party before winning nine seats for his own Freedom Party in 2006, campaigning against Islam, which he calls a threat to Dutch culture and Western values.

He called Islam a violent political ideology and vowed never to enter a mosque, “not in 100,000 years”. His party won 24 seats in the 150-seat lower house in June 2010.

He has been under 24-hour security for eight years after receiving death threats from radical Muslim groups in the Netherlands and abroad. Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik cited anti-Islamic comments by Wilders in an online manifesto that sought to justify his crimes. Wilders has denounced Breivik and his actions.

David Horowitz, who runs a network of Los Angeles-based conservative groups and a website called FrontPage magazine, said he paid Wilders fees for making two speeches, security costs during student protests and overnight accommodation for his Dutch bodyguards during a 2009 U.S. trip.

Horowitz said he paid Wilders for one speech in Los Angeles and one at Temple University in Philadelphia. He declined to specify the amounts, but said that Wilders had received “a good fee.”

When Wilders’ Philadelphia appearance sparked student protests, Horowitz said, he paid a special security fee of about $1,500 to the Philadelphia police department. Horowitz said he also paid for overnight accommodation for four or five Dutch government bodyguards accompanying Wilders on the trip.

Wilders said in response: “I am frequently asked to speak abroad. Whenever possible I accept these invitations. I never ask for a fee. However, sometimes the travel and accommodation expenses are paid. My personal security is always paid for by the Dutch government.”

Pipes and Horowitz denied funding Wilders’ political activities in Holland. Both run non-profit, tax exempt research and policy organizations which, under U.S. tax laws, are forbidden from giving direct financial backing to any political candidate or party. U.S. law does allow such groups to support policy debates financially.

h/t: Yahoo! News

contentious CNN interview by Soledad O’Brien with Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollak set off a firestorm of vitriolic name-calling against O’Brien from the far-right, with some critics going so far as to falsely accuse the CNN anchor of anti-Semitism.

While Pollak in his eagerness to hype his “bombshell” video mischaracterized CRT as a radical theory that calls for a war against white people, animosity on the far right has been pointed at Soledad O’Brien for correcting his inaccurate statements. Chris Loesch, husband of CNN contributor Dana Loesch, tweeted (HT: Little Green Footballs):

And Michelle Malkin, writing on David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com, claimed that O’Brien defended CRT and Bell because “she masks her political activism under the banner of corporate media ‘diversity.’” Malkin continues:

[L]iberal minority journalists simply can’t resist carrying water for Obama. That’s because their journalistic unity demands political unanimity. If you don’t accept the left-leaning agenda of “social change” journalism, you’re enabling racism. If you don’t support the pursuit of racial hiring goals as a primary journalistic and academic goal, you’re selling out.

Noticeably, neither Loesch and Malkin offer any evidence that CRT calls for “war against white people” or that O’Brien’s comments were rooted in anti-Semitism or racism. 

While Loesch and Malkin are quick to throw around incendiary accusations, it might be helpful for them to explain why they believe O’Brien’s defense of CRT and critical questioning of Joel Pollak justify accusing an award winning CNN anchor of racism and anti-Semitism.

h/t:  Eli Clifton at Think Progress Security