Third Party & Independents Archives

Safety, Liberty, Liberty, Safety, what's so hard

Section 215-Access to Records and Other Items Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Or as it is often referred to “the Library Records Provision” of the Patriot Act was one of 3 sections of the Patriot Act up for renewal this past Tuesday in HR 514: To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Re-authorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011. Yep, quite a mouthful and it appears quite confusing to those that represent us in Congress.

HR 514 was fast tracked last week, thereby requiring a two thirds majority vote for passage. It did not get the two thirds vote necessary for passage in the 112th Congress as the new majority leadership that pushed this through without debate thought it would. Thank you to the 122 Democrats and the 26 Republicans that voted against this bill. Maybe the next time around the leadership in the House of Representatives will do the right thing by the American people and at the very least modify this section of the law to comply with the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Better yet our representatives in Congress should do what our President recently asked Egypt to do, get rid of the emergency powers act, which is like our nations Patriot Act.

The 112th Congress convened on January, 3 2011 just over a month ago. The session started with many of our representatives reading the Constitution on the floor of the House, January 6 of this year. A first for the HOR and evidently just a political ploy by our representatives. In spite of this two hundred and seventy seven members of the House voted to renew this provision of the Patriot Act. My own representative in Congress, Cory Gardner voted to renew these provisions! Yep, Gardner is a conservative Republican new to Congress this term and has already disappointed me. He will hear from me on this issue. On a higher note two of my favorite representatives and champions of civil liberties in this Country, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Ron Paul of Texas voted Nay I am happy to say.

How did the 52 members of the “limited government” tea party caucus vote? Well lets just say the majority of them toed the party line, yes 44 of them voted to extend the act. What hypocrisy! Roughly 80% of the tea party caucus evidently valued safety over liberty. Of course they were joined by 233 other representatives of both parties who obviously believe that civil liberties are for other countries.

This bill will becoming back for another vote soon and is predicted to pass into law through the typical process whereby only a majority of votes is needed. We need to tell our representatives in Congress what President Obama told Egypt authorities, get rid of the Patriot Act. This issue seems to have transcended the usual left right political lines as many on the left and the right are tussling for and against the civil liberties protections many of us insist upon in this country. It is time to chose safety or liberty, as for me I prefer liberty. I urge those that prefer liberty to get in touch with your representative and your senators and tell them to vote No on the renewal of these provisions of the Patriot Act.

Well as an update it seems our Senators have approved this renewal until December for the Patriot Act. Bully for them in a 86 for 12 against vote. Senator Lieberman has this to say ""Then there will be a full-fledged debate on it," Lieberman told the Huffington Post. "That was what is discussed and that is okay with me. I support the Patriot Act as is. I think these three provisions are very sensible. There is no record that they have compromised everybody's rights but there is a record that they have helped protect our homeland security." So it seems that unless our group rights, yes all of us or none of us, are violated then it doesn't matter.

Posted by j2t2 at February 13, 2011 11:15 AM
Comments
Comment #318608

Congrats j2t2 on your first article!

It isn’t surprising that the ideology that rails against liberalism encourages its adherents votes to suppress the very liberty on which our nation was founded. Conservatism is at its heart an illiberal ideology bent on enslaving the populace and empowering those already in control.

Nonetheless, I am once again disappointed in my own representative’s behavior. Niki Tsongas claims to be a liberal, but does a poor job of showing it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 13, 2011 12:00 PM
Comment #318609

Thanks Warped. This narrow escape from the renewal is, I’m afraid, just temporary. Judging from the numbers of votes, it is both parties that suffer from the safety over liberty syndrome. The tea party caucus are a big disappointment because of their constant claims of favoring liberty over safety. That facts don’t match their rhetoric.


Here is another interesting article on this issue.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/09/tea_party

Posted by: j2t2 at February 13, 2011 12:33 PM
Comment #318610

J2T2,
Excellent article about an issues IMHO every American should take the time to think about. For why the Patriot Act came into being during a time when almost every American feared what could happen. Being a Nation of Law, we should require Congress, being the Makers of Law, establish the Patriot Act in such a manner as to engance our belief in the Law. For why I have no doubt that updating Americas’ Law Enforcement and Gathering Tools is necessary, still we owe it to our Forefathers and Ancestors not to allow those who are scared of the dark turn the Lights of Freedom out.

So why I join you in encouraging others to contact their Representatives and Senators on the Issue, just telling them to say no IMHO is not enough. For we must realize that today’s Criminal Mind is smarter than it was in the 20th Century and as such Americas’ Law Enforcement must also be fasyer and smarter. For example; the roving wire taps are needed because criminals have learned to use several cell phones instead of the one phone they had only a few years ago. So shouldn’t we have Congress expand the Law on wire tapping to include any and all means of communiications instead of just one phone number.

For we have seen what one can do with such social networks as Facebook and Tweeter to organize an entire nation let alone a group of people wishing to harm others or operate an illegal corporation. So we should give our Law Enforcement the tools necessary to maintain Domestic Tranquility and Promote the General Welfare. Thus, IMHO why calling your Representative and Senators we should require the Courts to monitor Law Enforcement when Emergency Wire Taps are requested. Becaise what might pop up on rader as something to be concerned about, might just be someone or a group blowing steam; however, it also could be something serious. Therefore, by having the Courts monitor the daily activity of Law Enforcement and continue Emergency Wire Taps while applying for regular wire taps can be judged in real time.

Because why we should not fool ourselve into believing or going back to the days when our National Security must be kept in the dark. Going forward, we must keep in mind the 4th Amendment is not designed to allow the Lawyers of Criminals to hide behind the Skrits of Innocence which has been done in the past. For just as we want to prevent Law Enforcement from running amuck. We owe it to the Founding Fathers of America and Future Generations to not allow those wishing to do harm to America and Our Citizens to run wild. And personally I believe My Community Elders and Peers are smart enough to figure out where that fine line begind and ends. We just have to make sure Our Elected Officials in Washington are that smart IMHO.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 13, 2011 12:40 PM
Comment #318612

Thank you for the Glenn Greenwald piece.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 13, 2011 1:07 PM
Comment #318640

Well said Henry.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2011 6:30 PM
Comment #318647

Congrats, J2T2-
My thought is, the main problem is the framing. What represents freedom and security, in my opinion, is very often the same thing.

Sure sometimes we lament 4th Amendment requirements, see them as impeding swift justice. Sometimes the failure to satisfy its thresholds bring truly unfair results.

But it keeps the police mostly minding their business, rather than our own, doing the job we prefer for them to be doing, which is fighting crime and going after criminals. It keeps the police from being a force meant to impose somebody’s will on us, and very importantly, it keeps corrupt officials from being able to completely undermine our system and conceal their crimes, as only those with unlimited power can.

Our bill of rights does much to secure us, both by reducing the greivances that let pools of subversives truly fester, and by limiting the government’s attention to what are its truly relevant functions in enforcing the law and protecting our country.

Legislating security law in harmony with those civil liberties is almost always for the best, because in the end, it does no good to fight in the name of preserving freedom by doing what takes it away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2011 8:09 PM
Comment #318658

Royal Flush,
Thanks, I’m working on making it easier for others to understand that the two political points of Ignorance is not the only ones Americans can have. Now, we need the Youth of Today to start teaching their Elders and Parents why “Stupid” don’t have a home in Americas’ Politics.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 14, 2011 2:36 AM
Comment #318660

“So why I join you in encouraging others to contact their Representatives and Senators on the Issue, just telling them to say no IMHO is not enough.”

Henry the vote will be either yes or no. Yes if you favor extending the 3 provisions, No if you are against the 3 provisions. In addition their are lawmakers that want to amend some of these provisions. This fast tracking did not allow for debate nor amendment.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactdeal.html#issue3

Henry I am going to skip over the wire tapping issues for now because I want to focus on just the one section of the Patriot Act, for now, just for now because sometimes when we put to much on the table we find it easier to talk past one another and we find nothing getting resolved. I will put together another post later on the other provisions of the Patriot Act up for renewal.

“we must keep in mind the 4th Amendment is not designed to allow the Lawyers of Criminals to hide behind the Skrits of Innocence which has been done in the past.”

I agree Henry but we must also understand that if we chip away at legitimate intentions of the 4th amendment soon we will have safety not liberty.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Papers and effects seems pretty reasonable to me.


Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2011 10:26 AM
Comment #318661

Stephen yes it is a complicated issue. I focused on the one section as a means to make it less complicated. If we are talking about only section 215, the library records provision then the “papers and effects” of a person are unduly compromised whenever a national security letter is given to someone. It is just way to “thought police-y” for me. Reading a book from the local library on making a bomb does not make you a terrorist. It allows law enforcement to head down the wrong road, leading our country down the same road, IMHO.

I don’t disagree with your general premise of safety and liberty being one and the same at certain times but I also believe at other times they are two separate roads we travel. This is one of them. I haven’t heard of nor seen any good coming from this provision of the Patriot Act.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2011 10:35 AM
Comment #318674

Excellent article & thread, with a lot of good opinions. This should be a no-brainer; follow the Constitution!! AS the title says..”What’s so hard?”

Posted by: steve miller at February 14, 2011 6:29 PM
Comment #318685

What good is a Patriot Act, if it only allows the government to invade the rights of law abiding citizens and does nothing to protect America? Political correctness is destroying this country.

Glenn Beck has been dealing with the issue of the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in American politics. This article was sent to me and is self explanatory:

Posted by: 1776 at February 14, 2011 10:37 PM
Comment #318687

1776, the rule is a blurb and a link not an entire article, re-comment with a teaser and a link if you think it is pertinent to this discussion,please.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 14, 2011 11:02 PM
Comment #318689

1776, Glenn Beck is a disease no one on WatchBlog wants to get. Uttering his name will reap the treatment a leaper would get.
j2t2 is correct. A link to a point being made will increase it’s credibility, or subject you to the ridicule of the leaper. Sometimes it’s fun reading how they jump out of their shorts trying to denounce Glenn Beck and those who listen to him.

That’s the difference between the leaper and the paranoid. The leaper actually knows what is being said and the paranoid are just resisting. The paranoid kill what they fear and they fear what they don’t understand. They don’t understand Glenn Beck because they don’t listen to him.

j2t2 is asking for a supporting document for your post.

Glenn Beck has been dealing with the issue of the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in American politics. This article was sent to me and is self explanatory:

Posted by: 1776 at February 14, 2011 10:37 PM


1776, there is no link to “This article”. I am interested in reading it.

“Make it so, Number 1!”
“Provide the link to the article that was sent to you!”
“You have 24 hours before the Enterprise blows up!”


Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2011 12:29 AM
Comment #318690

The point of mentioning GB was to say he has been dealing with the same subject. On the other hand, the article would be easy to search, but I don’t have time right now. Some of us actually have to make a living.

It was David Horowitz (sp) who spoke at CPAC. Thanks to whoever deleted the article, but deleting it will not make it go away, if true. I am sure it would be easy to follow up on the story.

Posted by: 1776 at February 15, 2011 12:58 AM
Comment #318691

“j2t2 is asking for a supporting document for your post”

No I’m not Weary, 1776 posted verbatim a long article about a Beck conspiracy theory. I removed it and let him know that it is a problem to post the entire article or what appeared to be the entire article.


“The point of mentioning GB was to say he has been dealing with the same subject. On the other hand, the article would be easy to search, but I don’t have time right now. Some of us actually have to make a living.”

1776, From the rules of participation-“Republishing more than a paragraph of any WatchBlog content other than on WatchBlog, without the author’s permission is prohibited. All quotation of WatchBlog material must be accompanied by attribution, which may take the form of a hyperlink to the full article, or, the Author’s name, title of article, date of the article, and column in which the article or comments appear.”

If it is pertinent just copy the link so we can read it. As far as Glenn Beck who knows. If the renewal of the Patriot Act and Norquist and the Muslim brotherhood theory are somehow connected it will be enlightening to think Beck may be right. The issue of the Patriot Act renewal extends beyond the left right political line as we can see when both Kucinich and Paul are on the same page.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 15, 2011 1:19 AM
Comment #318730

This is for j2t2, it was real hard to find.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/13/david-horowitz-confronts-the-muslim-brotherhood-at-cpac/

“1776, From the rules of participation-“Republishing more than a paragraph of any WatchBlog content other than on WatchBlog, without the author’s permission is prohibited. All quotation of WatchBlog material must be accompanied by attribution, which may take the form of a hyperlink to the full article, or, the Author’s name, title of article, date of the article, and column in which the article or comments appear.”


I copied and pasted an email; there was no author and copying and pasting a public statement does not infringe on anyones rights. Perhaps you just didn’t like what was said and decided to delete it?

Posted by: 1776 at February 15, 2011 9:17 PM
Comment #318735

J2T2,
I used wire tapping because it is the easiest IMHO to understand; nevertheless, you are right to point out that We need to address all the points of the Patriot Act. For though I realize there are many who don’t remember when the CIA got caught in the 70’s, I don’t believe we need to return to those days.

Personally, I wish Congress would completely rewrite the Act and replace it with a modren Law Enforcement Act that allows us to go after not only terrorists, but individuals, gangs, and groups that are trying to undermine our way of life. Because why most people try to live within the Law, the shooting in Arizona is a good example where Law Enforcement and Society failed the American Public.

However, I am also aware that others might fear such a reach by our government and will want to put up a safety net to protect those just blowing off steam. And I can be open to that idea provided the safety net is strong enough not to allow lawyers to abuse the system. For I really do believe Law Enforcement at least needs to be able to talk to a person who threatens to do harm before they can carry them out. And that can be done in accordance with the 4th Amendment without a doubt.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 15, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment #318736
I copied and pasted an email; there was no author and copying and pasting a public statement does not infringe on anyones rights. Perhaps you just didn’t like what was said and decided to delete it?

You really don’t understand the concept of copyrighted material don’t you? Previous editors were lax about enforcing this rule and I’m glad j2t2 has decided not to follow that trend. Too many times I’ve read through a comment that I thought belonged to a Watchblog commenter, only to stumble across the same thing on a different publication. Plagiarism is not trivial, but rather a very serious topic. If a friend of yours sent you an email, reply to your friend asking for the source; I’m sure he/she will gladly supply it.

Regarding Horowitz’s speech, thank you for sharing it. I try my hardest to expose myself to a wide variety of opinions from across the political spectrum and this is certainly a politically conservative speech.

Nevertheless, Horowitz is extremely deluded. It is true that our constitutional republic and its representational democracy faces challenges, both foreign and abroad. However, both those challenges are religious in nature. Abroad, radical Islamist groups are upset with the monarchies and dictatorship that have been planted in the Arab world; these groups have had little luck combating the “near enemy” and decided to broaden their effort by attacking what they consider to be the “far enemy” (the United States) which supports and props up these regimes. These Islamist groups wish to supplant those pro-American authoritarian states with Islamic Theocracies in a revival of the Caliphates of a millennium ago. Fortunately, these Islamist groups do not make up a majority of the population of the Middle East and we have allies amongst the populace there as was revealed recently in Egypt and Tunisia. Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood will have some influence over the future of Egypt, but they will not have any sort of dominant control.

Regarding the homeland, our Constitution is under siege from a group of Americans bent on spreading their values from the barrel of a gun. Social conservatives seek to deny the right of people to marry the person they love, to control what goes on inside their own bodies and to spy upon Americans in clear violation to the 4th amendment of the Constitution for reasons unknown. The risks of terrorist attacks are extremely small when compared to a host of other sources of mortality. These same people also seek to redistribute the wealth from one American to another by perverting the free market, often by enabling a select few the opportunity to expose the rest of the population to a host of external costs associated with a certain product.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 15, 2011 11:24 PM
Comment #318737

“I copied and pasted an email; there was no author and copying and pasting a public statement does not infringe on anyones rights. Perhaps you just didn’t like what was said and decided to delete it?:

1776, an email doesn’t mean there was no author. Just because you receive an email doesn’t mean who ever sent itr did not infringe upon the the rights of the author. I actually prefer things you say that I don’t like, to tell the truth.

I mean really, what you are saying is the Muslim Brotherhood has somehow infiltrated the conservative movement and has placed operatives in CPAC, what’s not to like. Such a conspiracy theory twixt the conservatives has me LOL, LMAO, and ROTFLMAO all at once. I was aware of this accusation that Grover Norquist is an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood and can only say “this is a Glenn Beck moment if ever there was one”. More power to you, accuse them of every thing you can think, of drum him out of the movement with these accusations. However just include a paragraph or so and link to the source.

I would like to understand how you think this accusation is relevant to the issue at hand, which is the renewal of the patriot act, so please enlighten me.

In fact let me help as I know these email rumors are hard to pin down.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=17621

Posted by: j2t2 at February 16, 2011 2:21 AM
Comment #318752

Warped Reality said,

“Nevertheless, Horowitz is extremely deluded.”

Tell me WR; was he deluded when he fought for liberal ideals, or is he only deluded now as a conservative?

“Regarding the homeland, our Constitution is under siege from a group of Americans bent on spreading their values from the barrel of a gun.”

As I am writing this, I am watching the House of Representaives live on CSPAN. They are debating the 2011 budget. The democrats are crying and wailing about the cuts to the budget. One after another get up and lie through their teeth about what the republicans are cutting. The democrats are like little puppets; they all say the same thing. At one point, after the democrats continued, one after another, to lie and say they are going to vote for the ammendment. A republican stood up and made a point of order; he asked the Speaker if there was an ammendment on the floor and the Speaker said no, there was not. The ammendment had been thrown out, an hour earlier, because it was in violation of the Constitution. So for the next hour, the democrats stood, one after another, and asked for support of the ammendment. Then, after the point of order had been made, another democrat woman stood and said, “I stand in support of the uh-uh-uh, same thing the last democrat stood in support of”. It was typical of the liberal left; they were not supporting an ammendment, they were standing, one after another, and talking to the camera about cutting medicare, SS, education, and every other liberal entitlement program.

After saying all that; I ask WR to explain what he means by “Americans spreading their values by the barrel of a gun”? If this means what I think it does, then WR is no different than the democrats in the House, who have lost their way and are resorting to lying fear tactics.

“These same people also seek to redistribute the wealth
from one American to another by perverting the free market, often by enabling a select few the opportunity to expose the rest of the population to a host of external costs associated with a certain product.”

Last of all, this statement is an absolute joke. Why do you try to use the old liberal tactic of blaming others for the very thing you are doing. It would be a waste of time to list all the times liberals, from Obama and down, who have stated, it was their goal to redistribute the wealth of America. Sorry WR, but I don’t think you will convince anyone with his argument.

Posted by: 1776 at February 16, 2011 11:09 PM
Comment #318756

1776,

“One after another get up and lie through their teeth about what the republicans are cutting. The democrats are like little puppets; they all say the same thing.”

And how is this different than when the Republicans did it?

It’s called politics and both parties could give a rat’s ass about the America. All they really want to do is give the appearance of governing, merely giving lip service to the American people. The Republicans helped get us into this mess and their “cure” for what ails America is to kill the patient.

“Why do you try to use the old liberal conservative tactic of blaming others for the very thing you are doing.”

Again, it’s politics, and both parties just want to stay in power.

And America gets screwed in the bargain.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 17, 2011 9:41 AM
Comment #318806

1776, My apologies for the delay in my response. I started a new job this week in addition to my classwork, so my freetime is a bit limited. I made a snide comment on the other article because it didn’t require that much time. My response to you here will hopefully be much more rigorous and well-researched.

Tell me WR; was he deluded when he fought for liberal ideals, or is he only deluded now as a conservative?

I haven’t followed David Horowitz’s writing and speeches for his entire career. I’m not familiar with any of them, so I don’t know if they contain anything as delusional as what he said at CPAC. Also, I’m on the young side (21 years old), so I’ve only been following politics for a short while. Apparently Horowitz’s conversion occured well before I started following politics. What I can tell you is that his recent CPAC speech was based mostly on fabrication.

As I am writing this, I am watching the House of Representaives live on CSPAN. They are debating the 2011 budget. The democrats are crying and wailing about the cuts to the budget. One after another get up and lie through their teeth about what the republicans are cutting. The democrats are like little puppets; they all say the same thing. At one point, after the democrats continued, one after another, to lie and say they are going to vote for the ammendment. A republican stood up and made a point of order; he asked the Speaker if there was an ammendment on the floor and the Speaker said no, there was not. The ammendment had been thrown out, an hour earlier, because it was in violation of the Constitution. So for the next hour, the democrats stood, one after another, and asked for support of the ammendment. Then, after the point of order had been made, another democrat woman stood and said, “I stand in support of the uh-uh-uh, same thing the last democrat stood in support of”. It was typical of the liberal left; they were not supporting an ammendment, they were standing, one after another, and talking to the camera about cutting medicare, SS, education, and every other liberal entitlement program.
I recently got a new job, so I haven’t been able to watch C-SPAN much recently (also partly the reason for the delay in getting back to you), so I’ll take you at your word about the behavior of our Congresspeople. I don’t know how long you’ve been reading my comments or if you read my personal blog, but I don’t don’t automatically defend Democrats, in fact I really don’t like my own Democratic Congresswoman, Nikki Tsongas; I didn’t support her in ‘07, ‘08 or ‘10. I’m a liberal, which means I support whatever gives individuals the maximum amount of liberty to manage their own affairs unless they infringe on the liberty of someone else. For the most part, there are two threats to this liberty. One is our corporate government, which undermines liberty by perverting the free market and other manipulations. The other threat is our political government, which can oppress individuals in the ways I’m sure you are familiar with. Most conservatives tend to recognize the threat from the latter, but ignore the threat from the former.

Social conservatives, on the other hand, often ignore both. This is why I said “our Constitution is under siege from a group of Americans bent on spreading their values from the barrel of a gun”. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Recently, conservatives have sought to impose a particular interpretation of Judeo-Christian standards of morality on the rest the nation. States have amended their Constitutions to deny some individuals from marrying the person they love. Some conservatives want to limit what Women can do with their own bodies. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to social conservatism run amok. Until recently, conservatives defended laws against homosexual sexual relations between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. When I say “from the barrel of a gun” I’m talking about our political government’s near-monopoly on lethal force. If John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner did not cooperate when they were arrested for having consensual sex, then lethal force would undoubtedly been used.

Last of all, this statement is an absolute joke. Why do you try to use the old liberal tactic of blaming others for the very thing you are doing. It would be a waste of time to list all the times liberals, from Obama and down, who have stated, it was their goal to redistribute the wealth of America. Sorry WR, but I don’t think you will convince anyone with his argument.

I say it because it is true. Conservative ideology leads to redistributing wealth from one person to another. True liberal ideology doesn’t advocate that; Obama is more of a progressive than a liberal, which is why he said he believes America would be better off if we spread the wealth around. I’m a liberal, but I’m not much of a progressive.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 18, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #318815

Warped Reality;

A few things about David Horowitz, which anyone could find, but I will highlight:

“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 FrontPage Magazine, and writes for Christopher Ruddy’s conservative website NewsMax.[2] Horowitz founded the right-leaning activist group Students for Academic Freedom…
Horowitz was born to a Jewish family in Forest Hills. His parents, Phil and Blanche Horowitz, were high school teachers. He taught English and she taught stenography.[3] Horowitz majored in English and received a BA from Columbia University in 1959 and a master’s degree in English literature at University of California, Berkeley.
His parents were long-standing members of the Communist Party.[4][5] Horowitz recounted his estrangement from his parents and gradual shift to the political right in a series of retrospectives, culminating in 1996 in his autobiographical book Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

“David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of a number of best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Drama (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). With Collier David Horowitz wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their decision to leave the 1960s left that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism.

Among David Horowitz’s more recent books are Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from red diaper baby to conservative activist that has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” Uncivil Wars (2002) chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses. Left Illusions (2003) is a one volume course on the history of our time-from the Cold War to the war on terror. Unholy Alliance (2004) examines the relationship between Radical Islam and the American Left. The Professors: the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (2006) reveals a shocking and perverse culture of academics who are poisoning the minds of today’s college students. David Horowitz is also author of The Politics of Bad Faith, How to Beat the Democrats and The Art of Political War, described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.”

David Horowitz has spoken at over 250 colleges and universities. He has appeared on Nightline, Crossfire, Today, Hannity and Colmes, the Bill O’Reilly Show, Good Morning America, C-SPAN, CNBC, Fox News Channel, CBS This Morning, and other programs. David Horowitz gives hundreds of interviews yearly on radio and television.”

http://www.aeispeakers.com/speakerbio.php?SpeakerID=512

There can be no doubt; David Horowitz was a liberal; with a progressive, socialist, and communist background. He was instrumental in establishing liberal causes; but what happened in his life to cause him to change his mind. He is very intelligent and has written many books on politics as well as world events. My question to you, “was he deluded as a liberal as well as being deluded (in your words) as a conservative. If you don’t know that much about David Horowitz, by your own statement, how can you fairly make the statement, that he is deluded? A man’s life and accomplishments are more than what he does at the present time. You believe he was enlightened at one time (when ha was a liberal), but now he is deluded, because he is a conservative. Your question should be; why did a man, who was so stringent as a liberal, become a conservative and change his political beliefs 180 degrees?

You said:

“Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

I fully understand why the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”; but I fear the left has no understanding of what Jefferson was talking about. The left wants to lump all morality as part of religion and therefore not allowed in government. The purpose of the law was to prevent the government from establishing a State recognized religion. It was never meant to say, just because a person is moral, he does not have a right to base his political beliefs on his moral beliefs. Can you explain to me why the Congress and Senate have Chaplains and begin their business with prayer? Why are the Ten Commandments located in the inner courtroom of the US Supreme Court? Why is “In God We Trust”, found on our money? The left cries about separation of church and state, and yet has no problem imposing their own religious beliefs on the rest of America. You say, “Recently, conservatives have sought to impose a particular interpretation of Judeo-Christian standards of morality on the rest the nation.” Can you honestly say that the left has not tried to impose their own religious beliefs on the majority of Americans? The religion of “socialism”, of “global warming”, of “wealth re-distribution”, of “government takeover of corporations”, of “class envy”, etc. These are the religions of the left. They worship these ideals as much as a Christian worships God.

Posted by: 1776 at February 18, 2011 9:01 PM
Comment #318817

“They worship these ideals as much as a Christian worships God.”

1776, really, then that doesn’t say much about Christians does it? Your exaggeration shows how little you really know and how much you are deceived by those that influence you. It is time to stop swilling the kool aid and turn off the radio if your statement is anything other than a poor attempt at humor. It is akin to saying all conservatives worship the confederate flag, the KKK, and fascist totalitarianism.

As far as Jefferson is concerned he actually wrote much more on the subject of the separation between church and state , but I will save that for another time.

As far as Horowitz I have a theory on why he appears to be deluded and I will espouse on it more in the “behind every door” post.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2011 9:43 PM
Comment #318840

j2t2, your writing style causes me to think you are a teenager, is that true? You have a sharp tongue and try to inflame.

Perhaps you could quote to me the words “separation of church and state”, from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights?

Posted by: 1776 at February 18, 2011 11:22 PM
Comment #318846
There can be no doubt; David Horowitz was a liberal; with a progressive, socialist, and communist background. He was instrumental in establishing liberal causes; but what happened in his life to cause him to change his mind. He is very intelligent and has written many books on politics as well as world events. My question to you, “was he deluded as a liberal as well as being deluded (in your words) as a conservative. If you don’t know that much about David Horowitz, by your own statement, how can you fairly make the statement, that he is deluded? A man’s life and accomplishments are more than what he does at the present time. You believe he was enlightened at one time (when ha was a liberal), but now he is deluded, because he is a conservative. Your question should be; why did a man, who was so stringent as a liberal, become a conservative and change his political beliefs 180 degrees?

I said he was deluded because the claims he made in his speech were delusional. It’s not necessary for you to copy&paste his biography on Wikipedia, I’m very capable of going there myself. From a cursory glance at his life I see that while Horowitz was certainly involved with statist and progressive organizations; I don’t see him as a liberal like I am though. Liberals like me believe in individual liberty and not the statism he seemed to be advocating. Now that he is a conservative he still advocates for statism, but only in a different arena. I don’t know his personal motivation for this change so I can’t comment on it. I wasn’t trying to make some overarching claim about Horowitz as a person, I was just saying that his statements in that CPAC speech were little more than baseless slander. In my opinion, only someone who was delusional could believe in that stuff.

It was never meant to say, just because a person is moral, he does not have a right to base his political beliefs on his moral beliefs.

I never said that your religion or your moral beliefs cannot influence your political beliefs. Personally, I think my own political beliefs are influenced quite a bit by my religious and moral beliefs. What I don’t support is using the government’s power to enforce religious laws. For example, I may choose to follow Jewish dietary laws, but I can’t use the government to prevent people from buying and eating shellfish. On the other hand, I do draw inspiration from my religious beliefs when concerning decisions which don’t have the possibility of infringing on the individual liberty of my fellow American. My decision to support or oppose a war is definitely driven by my religious beliefs. My belief that every American deserves equal opportunity (but not equal results) is partly derived from my spiritual beliefs. Hopefully you can see the difference between religion influencing one’s politics and using the barrel of the government’s gun to impose one’s religious beliefs on others.

Can you explain to me why the Congress and Senate have Chaplains and begin their business with prayer? Why are the Ten Commandments located in the inner courtroom of the US Supreme Court? Why is “In God We Trust”, found on our money?

None of these examples include using the coercive force of government to compel people to follow the practice of a particular religion. When the Congressional Chaplain leads a prayer, no one is forced to listen. However, the use of Chaplains disturbed many of our founding fathers. For example, James Madison said

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

The inner chamber of the Supreme Court features a frieze with 18 historical figures from the evolution of secular law from ancient times to the modern day. Moses appears with his tablets, but only four of the ten commandments are shown and these are only the commandments that address secular crimes, but not religious ones. Read here for more information.

“In God we Trust” did not appear on any American coins until the 1860s and did not become a universal feature of American coins until 1938. See here.

Perhaps you could quote to me the words “separation of church and state”, from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights?

I already said Jefferson interpreted the establishment clause of the first amendment to be equivalent to a “wall separating church and state” as I already pointed out. The fact that you ask for this phrase tells me you aren’t arguing in good faith here. I tried to preempt this common talking point by quoting Jefferson’s letter. The phrase separation of Church and State does not actually appear in any founding documents, its origin is Jefferson’s letter. Nevertheless, many of the founders considered the two to be functionally equivalent.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 19, 2011 1:08 AM
Comment #318864

“This is for j2t2, it was real hard to find.”

“One after another get up and lie through their teeth about what the republicans are cutting. The democrats are like little puppets; they all say the same thing.”

“The religion of “socialism”, of “global warming”, of “wealth re-distribution”, of “government takeover of corporations”, of “class envy”, etc. These are the religions of the left. They worship these ideals as much as a Christian worships God.”

Let ye without sin 1776….
Civility begets civility, gross exaggerations and misinformation begets sharp tongue.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 19, 2011 1:04 PM
Post a comment