Posts on David Horowitz

Perhaps nothing sums up the current state of the conservative movement like seeing a Hummer back into a limousine in the parking lot outside the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and seeing Mitt Romney beat John McCain in the CPAC straw poll on the question of “If the election were held today to decide the Republican Nominee for President in 2008, for whom would you vote?” despite having appeared at the conference only to drop out of the race. And while attendees were asked not to boo McCain, it didn’t stop them from doing so when he spoke … or whenever his name was mentioned by any of the other speakers.

Aside from the weirdness of Mike Huckabee basing his entire on speech on Phyllis Schlafly’s "A Choice, Not an Echo" despite the fact that Schlafly hates him and the sense of overwhelming despair at the possibility of a McCain nomination, the rest of CPAC consisted of typical right-wing fare, such as Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily delineating the dangers of the Fairness Doctrine, warning that if Democrats take control of the White House and Congress, “there will be no stopping these people” who operate with a “neo-fascist mentality,” only to be followed by David Horowitz who ranted about “fair-minded” conservatives being oppressed by liberals who want to “exterminate us.”  Or, as he put it, when liberals control the universities, they merely send conservatives to sensitivity training, but when “they control they state, they shoot you.”   

But it wasn’t all fear-mongering.  There was some good news too, such as the announcement by the National Black Republican Association that they were slowly becoming a force to be reckoned with, because last year their website received over one thousand visitors.  Of course, the NBRA might be even more of a force within the GOP if their panels weren’t relegated to a tiny room at the back of the convention

Though the event appeared to be less-well attended than in previous years, there was no shortage of red meat for those in attendance, as demonstrated by the hundreds of convention-goers who lined up hours in advance to get in to hear Ann Coulter

But despite the seeming disarray of the right-wing movement at the present, there still appears to be at least one thing that can unify them in this country: hatred of Hillary Clinton

To see more photos from CPAC, check out our Flickr page.

As part of his ongoing campaign against “liberal bias” on college and university campuses, FrontPageMag.com founder David Horowitz frequently takes aim at Humanities departments and their supposed “indoctrination.” Today, Horowitz sets his sights on Women’s Studies:

A year ago the biggest issue in education after budgets was whether “Intelligent Design” should be taught in the nation’s schools. Opponents called it a form of “creationism” and the press dubbed the ensuing legal battle as the biggest clash between faith and science since the Scopes Monkey Trial. In a stinging rebuke to the religious right, a Pennsylvania judge ruled that “Intelligent Design” had no place in classrooms because it was “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” thus violating the separation of church and state.  

Yet at that very moment professors in American universities were teaching a form of secular creationism as contrary to the findings of modern science as the Biblical claim that the God had made the world in seven days. 

The name of this theory is “social constructionism,” and its churches are Women’s Studies departments situated in universities across the United States.

Discussion of the ways gender roles are constructed by society, according to Horowitz, contravenes biological evidence that men and women are different. Therefore, the argument goes, those who think “Intelligent Design” creationism has “no place in classrooms” ought to think the same about this feminist theory. Of course, there’s a problem with this analogy: the question is whether “Intelligent Design” creationism should be taught in high school science classes as fact, as the judge Horowitz cites made clear.

Horowitz, the author of “Indoctrination U” and “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” ominously cites the catalog of Kansas State University, where Women’s Studies majors are required to “have demonstrated their familiarity with key Women’s Studies concepts such as the social construction of gender.” Horowitz translates this to mean that “In other words, a student cannot graduate from the Kansas State Women’s Studies program unless they believe in the ideology that makes up its core, and demonstrate that they do believe in it.”

For Horowitz, who lobbies state legislatures pass his bill to limit “controversial matter” in college classrooms, being familiar with ideas is the same as believing them. What does he think about Kansas State’s Center for the Understanding of Origins, which has exposed students to the “Intelligent Design” debate?

It appears as if at least one legislator in Arizona doesn’t think David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights” deserves only to be mocked and dismissed – rather, he thinks it is such a good idea that it ought to be turned into law:

To muzzle instructors who champion political views in classrooms, a Republican state legislator has proposed a law that would punish public school teachers and professors for not being impartial in the classroom.

If the idea were to become law, teachers said they might shy away from teaching controversial issues out of fear of being misunderstood and punished.

Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, wrote the bill that has drawn a stream of criticism and support since it received preliminary approval in a Senate committee this month.

…

Verschoor said his bill would protect students who are afraid to clash with instructors.

"This is absolutely about academic freedom. It allows students to practice their First Amendment right without fear of a poor grade because of it or any retaliation because they disagree with the instructor," Verschoor said during a recent Senate committee hearing.

Can’t mention matters of “controversy,” under David Horowitz-inspired “Academic Bill of Rights.”

As well as a “genocide-enabler.” See Horowitz on Fox News.

In a rambling and heated debate about Ward Churchill - the University of Colorado professor who was fired for calling some of the victims of the Sept. 11th attacks on the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns” - on Tuesday’s edition of “Hannity and Colmes,” Front Page Magazine founder and right-wing gadfly David Horowitz launched into a tirade while making the claim that that the “the founders of radical Islam … were followers of Hitler.”

Although there had been no mention of former president Jimmy Carter and the controversy surrounding his new book during the segment, completely out of the blue Horowitz blurted out that Churchill is “like [Former President] Jimmy Carter … a Jew hater.”  Both co-host Alan Colmes and Horowitz’s opposing guest, Robert Dreyfuss, took issue with Horowitz’s remark, but Horowitz was too busy talking to pay them any mind. [Watch the Video: Broadband or Dial-Up]

HOROWITZ: Alan, that is totally false. That's just completely false.

DREYFUSS: His point about Israel.

COLMES: Robert -- hold on, Robert. Let David finish and can you respond.

HOROWITZ: Like Jimmy Carter he is a Jew hater. Israel has...

COLMES: Jimmy Carter is not a Jew hater, David.

HOROWITZ: With the desire of -- first of all, you have to understand that the founders of radical Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, were followers of Hitler.

COLMES: Robert -- very quickly, Robert. I promised Robert a chance to respond.

DREYFUSS: If David will stop talking.

COLMES: Hold on, David.

HOROWITZ: ... and people who feed their propaganda are -- look...

COLMES: David, we're just out of respond. I promised Robert a chance to respond. Robert, go ahead.

DREYFUSS: David, look, there's nothing Jew hating about Jimmy Carter or me or anyone else who thinks that America's support for Israel is completely misguided and overblown and that we need to take a serious look at an even-handed policy to support both Israel and the Palestinian right to a statehood.

COLMES: All right, gentlemen, we thank you. We are just out of time, guys, we thank you both very much.