Friday, February 26, 2010

David Horowitz

I am researching information on this biggotted racist rightwing facist with a leftwing Jewish background. I personally think he was either lying about being an advocate of the people when he tried to get rich and famous (He was pretty successful then.) as a consumer advocate. I guess caring about people instead his own agenda wasn't as lucrative. I remember reading about David Horowitz and seeing him on TV. He was the Ralph Nader of the modern world. Nader couldn't even figure out how to get a better haircut but Horowitz, he was "presentable". He has turned into another Karl Rove type, lying in the background to cause political pressure. He had enough backing but found out, evidently that RightWing conspiracy pays better. Where did the guy who started "Fight Back America" and had commercials advocating not getting ripped off turn to be a "screw the people" agenda attack dog? It is simple. He gets payed better.
I am borrowing a blurb from WikiPedia about his history. "...David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer and policy advocate. Horowitz was a member of the New Left in the late 1960s before moving to the right in the 1970s.
He is a founder and the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, edits the conservative website FrontPage Magazine, and writes for Christopher Ruddy's conservative website NewsMax. Horowitz founded the right-leaning activist group Students for Academic Freedom."
So, when he found better paying jobs spreading the same nonsense and propaganda that his previous personna fought against, then, he became the guy for the other side. I wonder how that center is going? Let me see, when was that founded? 1988? That is about on the same timeline as the new world order take over in some of the conservative parts of New England. As I remember, that part of the country is usually pretty conservative but how does this happen in ten years? The David Horowitz Freedom Center was originally something else.
Let's see what else Wiki says: "...The David Horowitz Freedom Center is a conservative[citation needed] foundation founded in 1988 by political activist David Horowitz and his long-time collaborator Peter Collier. It was established with funding from philanthropies, such as the Olin Foundation the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation."
And do I see any room for saying that this organisation is corrupt? "...Between July 2000 and February 2006, the center (under its old name) was the sponsor of 25 trips by U.S. Senators and Representatives, all Republicans, to six different events. Total expenditures were about $43,000." I see, so when a senator gets to travel for free, could that have an influence on his voting habits? Let's see what else they have up their sleeve: "...The Center claims credit for a "growing willingness of conservatives to identify radicals as 'leftists' and not 'liberals'" and for getting "mass market conservatives" such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Tom DeLay to use terms like “fifth column”, “hate America left” and “Shadow Party”.
I see, so what we are reading is the blank check approval of propaganda, hate speech creation, and graft." And what blanket criticisms are there against this guy?
"... Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization devoted to "combat racism and promote civil rights through research, education and litigation," identified the CSPC (now DHFC) 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."
This man is really dangerously delusional. What could he possibly say to make this seem OK? "... Responding with an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, Horowitz stated that his reminder that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers was a response to demands that only whites pay blacks reparations, not to hold Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery, and that the statement that he had denied lingering racism was "a calculated and carefully constructed lie." The letter said that Berlet's work was "so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself."[5] The SPLC refused,[16] and subsequent critical pieces on Berlet and the SPLC have been featured on Horowitz's website and personal blog."
Well, Mr. Horowitz, you have just gained some unwanted attention that I think I want you to get. I am going to make sure that your 'branding' of propaganda rituals as "all your own" and taking credit for lies propagated in the name of "Freedom" is going to be uncovered and revealed. You have just become this blogger's sidebar agenda and I will see to it that the whole United States of America gets to see you for what you are.
Thank You, you have given me a mission again. All the other front men for stupid are already exposed. You won't hide in the backrooms of your Freedom Foundation again without notice. First, I wish to expose you to your rightwing conspirators. Hey, Conservatives, This guy is messing with you! You are for corporate America and he has a huge multi-nationally well recognized busiess that he makes money off of by EXPOSING YOU to regular John Q. Citizen type Americans as liars, thieves, frauds, and downright rotten people. It is called Fight Back America. The website is at and it explains that Mr. Horowitz is on Radio, Televison, and has a weekly column posted on the internet exposing all of corporate America when they make a mistake. Does that sound like a Rightwing Agenda? His only claim to faim is that he invented some propaganda terminology that worked for you.
I am not the only one to have noticed Mr. Horowitz lately. His website for his "Freedom Center" has been shut down. He now works out of the website for Frontpage Magazine. They are a folksie little site that starts your viewing out with a picture of wrinkled old "Mama" who tells us not to spend money on income tax preparation. The articles have catchy titles like "Fasting for Big Government" with a picture of Glen Beck, then "Napolitano Stumbles Upon Islamic Jihad", "History as Heresy: The Socialist Immolation of Reality", and my favorite "Is Hannah Arendt still relevant?" (I don't know, who the hell is she?).
Their editor is also someone on the "Confused Agenda" committee, his name is Jamie Glazov (what nationality is that name?) and his credits are: "...Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror."
The left's romance with Tyranny? If Adolph Hitler, Stalin, or Musolini were teenagers living in the United States today they would be members of "the Young Republicans". You have to realise that these men were all idealistic extremists who, once they got a taste of what they could get by being a member of the government, became dictator style rulers. Is that what liberals want? Mr. Horowitz's admitted propaganda branding of liberals as 'communists, socialists, or extremist left wing radicals" is such a monstrous lie that he seems to have been telling so long that he has begun to believe it.
Let me recite for you what the difference between liberal minded and conservative are in the dictionary:
"...Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : ample, full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4 : not literal or strict : loose

5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

— lib·er·al·ly \-b(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb

— lib·er·al·ness noun

synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given
. generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift . bountiful suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing . munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes .

OKay, now let's look up what people think of (that is where the dictionary definitions come from. We as a society understand a principle and one word will have many different answers. That is what semantics is about, we change the meanings of words through our useage but this definition is what most everyone UNDERSTANDS as the meaning. OK, let's see what Merrium Webster had to say aboout this.

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : preservative
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution
c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism

— con·ser·va·tive·ly adverb

— con·ser·va·tive·ness noun "

And so when it comes to the kinds of persons that these describe, I would say definition number 5 from liberal, "...5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms ", and that sounds pretty good to me. AND, "...
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution
c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
" which pretty much defines our last election, also. People who are consistently "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional" ARE NOT THE AGENTS OF CHANGE, THEY ARE THE AGENTS OF STANDING STILL WHILE NO PROGRESS IS MADE. The article I read the other day and the video I saw were both derogatory towards the Republican party and they were both correct. The Republican Party has a "cranky old man" type agenda that is nothing but obstructionist and is subject to be seen by anyone with intelligence as nothing but full of fear. Being frozen in fear is the only reason that anyone would even consider not helping their fellow human being, especially when they are spending someone else's money, UNLESS they were considering how much of that money that they might be able to steal for themselves. Do you really think the military pays 300 dollars for a toilet seat or 700 dollars for a hammer?
Someone is pocketing that money to supply entertainment and luxury for themselves and their families at the tax payer's expense. How long are you going to let the people who are in charge of this malfeasance continue to steal from us? Next time you vote, think about whether or not you want to pay for people who get millions of dollars from Lobbiests that work for large companies so that those companies can continue to rape you financially. The malfeasance on Wall Street was definitely NOT the first time, but this is the first time they got caught doing this much. That is UNILIMITED GREED, my friend, pure and simple.

No comments: